Tiny server?

[max bianco]

On Jan 18, 2008 9:36 AM, John Summerfield <debian at herakles.homelinux.org>
wrote:

> Timothy Murphy wrote:
> > max wrote:
> >
> >>> But I don't really see the need for a small linux today.
> >>> (I tried Damn Small Linux on a small USB stick some time ago,
> >>> and wasn't too happy with it.)
> >>> It seems to me any new machine allows enough RAM today for anything
> >>> I'm likely to do,
> >>> and 4GB or even 8GB USB sticks seem cheap enough.
> >
> >> I 'll say it again just cause....
> >>
> >> www.freenas.org
> >>
> >> its unix not linux but so what.
> >
> > To repeat myself, too:
> > The selling point of freenas seems to be that it only needs 32MB.
>
> Small download.
>
> > But can one actually get a memory card or hard disk that small?
>
> I think my mate William has some. Maybe 64 Mbyte; they use to be
> expensive.
>
> > What actually is the point of cutting down to that extent?
>
> Leaves free space for other stuff.
>
> > Will it save energy?
>
> Probably not.
>

I  would put reliability ahead of everything else.  If it saves energy by
being down half the time that isn't good either. It is reliable and doesn't
need alot of resources. I run FreeNas on an old  amd 300 mhz cpu and 384MB
RAM but it actually doesn't need that much memory.
The fact that you could install it on a thumb drive is nice but I don't see
the point in doing that for a server. I have it installed on an old ,very
used, quantum bigfoot (it's actually bigger than bigfoot's foot)8.4GB HDD
and I added another used HDD for additional storage. Ideal if you have an
old machine laying around ( of which there are plenty to be had). It has an
abundance of features and works well. This is of course just my opinion.

-Max
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080118/a6724807/attachment-0001.htm>