I really need a low power usage server for storing files on my network. I have a few options for the base systems. I got a compaq system with a pII 333mhz, or I can used a Asus p3b-f with a 300mhz celeron or 450mhz PIII. Also got my Amd 64 3000+ which can run at 1000mhz 5x200 1.10v.I also got a xp2600+ m with Asus a7n8-x which can only undervolted to 1.5vs. Which of these systems would use the least power. I am hoping to be running a 250gig hard drive, even 400gig depending of my budget. Will I save any power if I use just a single drive, instead of using a smaller drive for boot.
Thanks
Low power server
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
We have a old full size pc (althon 1000hz time pc)
- I did look into a low power server, maybe an eden based system, but i come to the conclution that for a small home filesever quite possable the best thing to get is a NAS drive like the Bufflow linkstation, or the Linksis, which is apprently better.
- But at where still usinf the old time pc in the atic.
Daniel
- I did look into a low power server, maybe an eden based system, but i come to the conclution that for a small home filesever quite possable the best thing to get is a NAS drive like the Bufflow linkstation, or the Linksis, which is apprently better.
- But at where still usinf the old time pc in the atic.
Daniel
I second the linksys NSLU2 - for 150GBP I now have 250GB of networked storage. I have the USB HDD balanced on some "air-bag" packing material so I only ever hear it when the disk is really working hard. I can usually get about 2MB/s transfer rate to/from the device.
In addition, if you want extend the capabilities of the NSLU2, then it's reasonably easy (easier for those that know a little unix/linux).
My NSLU2 is currently serving windows file shares, NFS and has a web server serving a php gallery. For an idea of just how versatile it is have a browse of NSLU2-linux.
If you want to keep it in it's original state then I can reassure you it is very easy to set up - from unpacking it to copying files on to it in ~10 minutes.
-Quikkie
In addition, if you want extend the capabilities of the NSLU2, then it's reasonably easy (easier for those that know a little unix/linux).
My NSLU2 is currently serving windows file shares, NFS and has a web server serving a php gallery. For an idea of just how versatile it is have a browse of NSLU2-linux.
If you want to keep it in it's original state then I can reassure you it is very easy to set up - from unpacking it to copying files on to it in ~10 minutes.
-Quikkie
Re: Low power server
I'd go with the 300mhz Celeron. Note that the old motherboard's BIOS probably will NOT directly support 48bit LBA addressing (i.e. 127+gigs), so you'd have to use one of:
1. Linux - ignores BIOS
2. Hard drive manufacturer's overlay utility - hmm...should work okay...
3. IDE controller card - includes its own BIOS, but there may be issues trying to boot from it
In any case, you'll want at least a 100mbit fast ethernet card; if you're buying a new one you'll want a gigabit card. With 100mbit, you'll be limited to about 12megabytes per second transfer rates, and most any hard drive is capable of greater than that. Of course, you only get gigabit rates if all of your equipment is gigabit capable--but it's worth thinking about future expansion.
You'll definitely save power and improve heat, reliability, and noise by using just one hard drive instead of using a separate small OS drive. Instead, you want to partition a single drive with a small OS partition and a large data partition.
1. Linux - ignores BIOS
2. Hard drive manufacturer's overlay utility - hmm...should work okay...
3. IDE controller card - includes its own BIOS, but there may be issues trying to boot from it
In any case, you'll want at least a 100mbit fast ethernet card; if you're buying a new one you'll want a gigabit card. With 100mbit, you'll be limited to about 12megabytes per second transfer rates, and most any hard drive is capable of greater than that. Of course, you only get gigabit rates if all of your equipment is gigabit capable--but it's worth thinking about future expansion.
You'll definitely save power and improve heat, reliability, and noise by using just one hard drive instead of using a separate small OS drive. Instead, you want to partition a single drive with a small OS partition and a large data partition.
2 megabytes per second? I personally could not accept such slow transfer rates. My network is 100mbit fast ethernet; with Linux I get transfer rates of around 10megabytes per second. There's a noticeable difference between browsing digital photos locally vs over the network, even though the local drive is a relatively slow 2.5" drive.2MB/s transfer rate
my network is 100FDX too, not that it matters to me, with thumbnail support (i.e. caching of thumbnails) the speed of the NSLU2 while slow is still more than acceptable. Although I don't believe that I'd go so far as to try and burn a DVD from files stored on it...
Either way, it's a "plug it in and stop worrying about it" solution rather than licensing another windows box, or learning the intricacies of your chosen unix platform and samba - my day job is a unix sysadmin and I use FreeBSD almost exclusively at home.
Different people have different needs, in my case it was cheap (56GBP), it's fast enough to keep up with my torrenting and movie playing and it fulfills all I want from it - with room to expand if I need it.
-Quikkie
Either way, it's a "plug it in and stop worrying about it" solution rather than licensing another windows box, or learning the intricacies of your chosen unix platform and samba - my day job is a unix sysadmin and I use FreeBSD almost exclusively at home.
Different people have different needs, in my case it was cheap (56GBP), it's fast enough to keep up with my torrenting and movie playing and it fulfills all I want from it - with room to expand if I need it.
-Quikkie
I do find it convenient burning DVD-ROMs straight off the network.
My only DVD burner is in my HTPC. After I replaced its hard drive with an old 2.5" drive, I found out that the new hard drive was too slow to keep up with a fast DVD burn. I decided to try out burning straight off the network, instead of wasting time making a local hard drive copy first. Hey, it worked, and it worked great!
My only DVD burner is in my HTPC. After I replaced its hard drive with an old 2.5" drive, I found out that the new hard drive was too slow to keep up with a fast DVD burn. I decided to try out burning straight off the network, instead of wasting time making a local hard drive copy first. Hey, it worked, and it worked great!