changing home network
tom
tfreeman at intel.digichem.net
Sat Mar 22 20:01:53 UTC 2008
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Les wrote:
> Hi, everyone,
> I currently have four systems on my home network. I have them all
> configured as standalone systems, but the burden of backing them up etc.
> etc. is becoming too much. I want to set up a full network with server
> and common user directories. Currently I have 2 Linux only systems, one
> windows only system, and one dual boot.
>
> I have been monitoring (and sometimes helping, occasionally kibbutzing)
> the mailing list, so I believe I can figure out most of it by now.
> However, here is my question.
>
> I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all
> the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu
> system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows.
> This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure
> and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full
> change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work
> on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to
> clean up my big goofs).
>
> I am leery of using the older system simply because I suspect it is
> approaching mechanical, support, and electrical end of life (over 6
> years old). Buying a new system is possible, but adding yet another
> 300watts to my system load would be tough.
>
> I think I would need to add wiring to the house. So, the question
> becomes do I trust the older system, make my system the server, adopt
> the remaining system (currently running f8) as a server, or should I
> just throw down the cash and get yet one more system for a server. Also
> I am thinking that having a common server would make backuppc simpler
> and support, backup issues and so forth would be much simpler. Could I
> continue to have the mail setup as it is with each system downloading
> email from my ISP? Setting up a mail server is not something I want to
> do for our home stuff.
>
> ` I suspect that on this mailing list there is someone who has been
> faced with a similar situation, so please if that person reads this,
> give me your experienced opinion.
Well, I got opinion. Experience may be questionable, but I got opinion.
8-)
As I read it, you just want a file server/disk server with none of the
trimmings. For a server which just supports backup, durn near anything
should work just fine, as long as you stuff enough disk capacity in and
keep a nice UPS online. Should you prefer to keep the user files live on
the new server, you would have slightly more complexity but your files
follow you around.
Guessing a bit in the dark, I'm tempted to suggest take your lightest cpu
machine for the server. Put a big disk in, and run both NFS and Samba so
it doesn't much matter whether or not you are working under Linux or
Windows.
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list