If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Best drive configuration?
I'm moving drives between my PC, my server and my spares. I'm hoping to hear
a few opinions about what I'm trying to improve... What I want, from most important to least. - Increase the snappyness of my PC - Increase storage space on server - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC --- My current configuration: --- (all drives are 7200rpm, 2meg cache) My PC: Windows XP SP1, 2.6Ghz P4 @ 3.2ghz, 512meg of DDR533 memory (PC4300) - C:= 80gig - all files - NTFS Server: Windows 2003, AMD XP2000+ @ 1.67Ghz, 512meg DDR memory - C: = 40gig+40gig in RAID 0 - System, Programs, Shared documents, Windows swap - NTFS - D: = 120 gig - MP3, Archival, Windows swap - NTFS USB2 external: 40gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT Spa 60gig --- What I'm considering: --- My PC: - 40gig - 39gig as System files - NTFS - 1gig Linux swap - 40gig - 2 gig as Windows swap and Linux accessible - FAT - 38gig as Fedora Linux - Reiser FS (what partitions should be real partitions? usr? home? var?) Server: - 40gig - System files - NTFS - 80gig - Programs, Shared files, Documents, etc. + Windows swap files - NTFS - 120gig - MP3, Archival + Windows swap USB2 external: 60gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT So... does this sound OK? Any comments or suggestions? Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there and I've already got too many HDDs!!! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Noozer" wrote in message news:NRorc.557879$Ig.379124@pd7tw2no...
I'm moving drives between my PC, my server and my spares. I'm hoping to hear a few opinions about what I'm trying to improve... What I want, from most important to least. - Increase the snappyness of my PC Presume you mean user perceived responsiveness as opposed to measured "snappiness". - Increase storage space on server - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC --- My current configuration: --- (all drives are 7200rpm, 2meg cache) My PC: Windows XP SP1, 2.6Ghz P4 @ 3.2ghz, 512meg of DDR533 memory (PC4300) - C:= 80gig - all files - NTFS Server: Windows 2003, AMD XP2000+ @ 1.67Ghz, 512meg DDR memory - C: = 40gig+40gig in RAID 0 - System, Programs, Shared documents, Windows swap - NTFS - D: = 120 gig - MP3, Archival, Windows swap - NTFS USB2 external: 40gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT To be used as a "hot pluggable" disk? Spa 60gig --- What I'm considering: --- My PC: - 40gig - 39gig as System files - NTFS - 1gig Linux swap - 40gig - 2 gig as Windows swap and Linux accessible - FAT - 38gig as Fedora Linux - Reiser FS (what partitions should be real partitions? usr? home? var?) Presume you know that having swap on different hds only "gains" you anything if the hds are eg., primary master and secondary master -- and if you really use/need swap that much. If you're using swap that much, get more ram ;-) Partitions will depend on how you use the PC -- less critical here than server. I always like having /boot on a separate (primary) partition. Same for FAT "sharing" partition. Gave up years ago trying to "optimize" placement of swap -- just buy more ram ;-) Server: - 40gig - System files - NTFS - 80gig - Programs, Shared files, Documents, etc. + Windows swap files - NTFS - 120gig - MP3, Archival + Windows swap USB2 external: 60gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT So... does this sound OK? Any comments or suggestions? Seems OK to me -- but only you can really determine appropriateness. Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there and I've already got too many HDDs!!! Since we don't know what sorts of apps you run that seem to have you scurrying to "get the most out of swap" performance, it's really hard to tell what -- if any -- snappiness increase you'll get. Any time you're using swap much, it's an indication that the apps need more ram or your usage pattern -- load every .exe on disk -- needs more ram to feed the habit. I like to keep my disk structures fairly simple since it makes maintainence easier -- at least that's the aim ;-). Partitioning with Linux also has security (improved) implications by physically dividing where files (and file access) are used. For servers, thoughtful consideration is mandatory, IMO. For desktop/end user machines it may be more important to divy up the disk so that backups and upgrades are easier. / [ that's root] /boot (on a primary patition) /usr /home /tmp /var /swap would be my inclination to start with. Perhaps a separate /scratch or /data if it makes life easier. This is habit from setting up servers and some items (like /var and /tmp and even /usr) could be combined. If you use much third party software -- or any that are sizable -- you may find a separate /opt to be useful. Besides usage the distro you're using can also influence these decisions. The layout on RH and Fedora Core (?) can get in the way of updating some software if you want to use the default layout. Personally, I keep OOo, J2SDK, and Netbeans on /opt -- would keep KDE there also, but I'm too lazy to compile my own KDE updates and I'm willing to live with the RH compatible updates compiled by others. The others offer binaries that will set comfortably in /opt and not clutter the rest of the RH layout while offering more timely updates. Consider with a grain of salt ... hth, prg email above disabled |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What I want, from most important to least.
- Increase the snappyness of my PC Presume you mean user perceived responsiveness as opposed to measured "snappiness". Exactly... With a CPU at 3Ghz I don't think making the computer faster will resolved the delays I see sometimes from my desktop. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of the IDE bus being busy. Most of the time the PC is just fine, but anything "file" intensive like my email/newsgroup reader (my folders are very large as I need access to very old email, etc.) or processing large ZIP files, etc. causes the desktop to run slowly as it retrieves icon caches and the like. If I have three or four ZIPs compressing or decompressing I shouldn't see a hit on the speed that the desktop itself reacts. I currently do since many of the files are coming from my C: drive, which also holds my swap file as well as my system files. My PC: Windows XP SP1, 2.6Ghz P4 @ 3.2ghz, 512meg of DDR533 memory (PC4300) - C:= 80gig - all files - NTFS Server: Windows 2003, AMD XP2000+ @ 1.67Ghz, 512meg DDR memory - C: = 40gig+40gig in RAID 0 - System, Programs, Shared documents, Windows swap - NTFS - D: = 120 gig - MP3, Archival, Windows swap - NTFS USB2 external: 40gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT To be used as a "hot pluggable" disk? Yes. Currently it's drive E: on my PC. I've moved some apps to that drive and when they are busy I don't have the delays I used see on my desktop when they were active. This is why I think spreading out my load on the IDE busses will help. Spa 60gig --- What I'm considering: --- My PC: - 40gig - 39gig as System files - NTFS - 1gig Linux swap - 40gig - 2 gig as Windows swap and Linux accessible - FAT - 38gig as Fedora Linux - Reiser FS (what partitions should be real partitions? usr? home? var?) Presume you know that having swap on different hds only "gains" you anything if the hds are eg., primary master and secondary master -- and if you really use/need swap that much. If you're using swap that much, get more ram ;-) Watching the TaskManagers performance tab I very rarely see my peak "Commit Charge" go past about 65% of my physical memory (Ie 350meg of 512). Processor utilization is rarely high, even when the computer seems sluggish. Partitions will depend on how you use the PC -- less critical here than server. I always like having /boot on a separate (primary) partition. Same for FAT "sharing" partition. Gave up years ago trying to "optimize" placement of swap -- just buy more ram ;-) I know... I paid a premium for DDR533. Looking back I think it was a bit foolish, but the machine benchmarks very well (except IDE of course) I'm considering selling it and picking up more memory (DDR433 or 466), but I doubt I'd see anything close to what I paid. Server: - 40gig - System files - NTFS - 80gig - Programs, Shared files, Documents, etc. + Windows swap files - NTFS - 120gig - MP3, Archival + Windows swap USB2 external: 60gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT Seems OK to me -- but only you can really determine appropriateness. Just trying to avoid being bitten in the ass after the fact. Also hoping it would help some of the "speed demons" when they are considering their setups. RAID and bus speeds only help out when you don't have other bottlenecks. Also, a fast PC will still seem slow and clunky if you overlook your file system layout. Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there and I've already got too many HDDs!!! Since we don't know what sorts of apps you run that seem to have you scurrying to "get the most out of swap" performance, it's really hard to tell what -- if any -- snappiness increase you'll get. Any time you're using swap much, it's an indication that the apps need more ram or your usage pattern -- load every .exe on disk -- needs more ram to feed the habit. I boot, open email and news at the same time, run BNR2, Par/Unzip CD and DVD images. Usually all at the same time. I should have also mentioned that the connection between my PC and the server is gigabit, so LAN speeds aren't having much of an affect... I'm limited to drive speeds here. Best I can get across the LAN copying files is about 250 mbits. I like to keep my disk structures fairly simple since it makes maintainence easier -- at least that's the aim ;-). Partitioning with Linux also has security (improved) implications by physically dividing where files (and file access) are used. For servers, thoughtful consideration is mandatory, IMO. For desktop/end user machines it may be more important to divy up the disk so that backups and upgrades are easier. / [ that's root] /boot (on a primary patition) /usr /home /tmp /var /swap would be my inclination to start with. Perhaps a separate /scratch or /data if it makes life easier. This is habit from setting up servers and some items (like /var and /tmp and even /usr) could be combined. If you use much third party software -- or any that are sizable -- you may find a separate /opt to be useful. Are there any websites that describe the actual uses for these partitions? The HowTo's and manpages that I've found aren't very specific. Currently I create /boot, /swap and / holds everything else. Besides usage the distro you're using can also influence these decisions. The layout on RH and Fedora Core (?) can get in the way of updating some software if you want to use the default layout. Personally, I keep OOo, J2SDK, and Netbeans on /opt -- would keep KDE there also, but I'm too lazy to compile my own KDE updates and I'm willing to live with the RH compatible updates compiled by others. The others offer binaries that will set comfortably in /opt and not clutter the rest of the RH layout while offering more timely updates. I'm a Linux newbie, so keeping it simple is important. I'm planning on trying out Fedora Core2, Test 3 (unless there is something newer available) in the next little while. I'm hoping it has proper AGP support for the I875p chipset. I couldn't get AGP acceleration in Suse 9.1or Mandrake 9.? I appreciate the comments. It looks like I'm on the right track. Take care! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:05 +0000, Noozer wrote:
- Increase the snappyness of my PC - Increase storage space on server - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC Rather than increase storage space, I'd recommend that you better utilise the space you already have first. Also, why use Windows for the server? A server's OS should be transparent to the client, so it doesn't matter one way or the other ... except from the point of view of cost, available services, administration, security and stability. Since you're installing Fedora on the client anyway, just make the server a Linux system too (although OpenBSD would be even better for a server). Bear in mind, that a true server is not a machine that you sit down in front of and play solitaire, it's supposed to be invisible and silent - usually without even a mouse, keyboard or monitor, but rather accessed and administered remotely. From what you've posted here, I get the impression that the "server" is not actually on a network, but instead you are physically carrying data across in a USB drive? No, no, no, no, no! Here's what I'd do: (Current) Requirements: 1 server (file & possibly other unspecified services). 1 client running Windows XP & Linux (dual boot). Improve client system responsiveness. Increase (or better utilise) server storage. Drives: 3 x 40GB - disks 1, 2, 3 1 x 60GB - disk 4 1 x 80GB - disk 5 1 x 120GB - disk 7 Recommendations: Buy as much memory as you can afford. Buy a second 80GB drive to Raid 0 with disk 5 - (disk 6). Replace disk 4 with an 80GB drive (sell the 60GB drive). Other hardware required, but unspecified: 2 x NICs, min 100TX, recommend Gigabit for server at least. Network hub, min 100TX compat, recommend switch - 1GB uplink. 2 x Cat5 networking cables (Gigabit verified), unspecified length. Note: Until/unless you need to access the server from more than one client, you can skip buying a hub/switch and just use crossover cable to connect the machines together directly. You can always add a hub/switch later (but bear in mind you'll need different cables). Server: Disk 1 - primary master: Grub MBR Linux System, ReiserFS, 40GB. (Running Samba and/or NFS.) Primary slave - DVD-ROM. Disk 5 - secondary master: User Data, ReiserFS, 80GB. Disk 7 - secondary slave: Linux Swap, 2GB. Imaging partition, ReiserFS, 118GB. (Perform regular image backups, using dd, of non-swap partitions from disks 1, 2 & 3). Disk 4 - USB External: Data Backup from disk 5, ReiserFS, 60GB (80GB?) (compressed file backups). Client: Disk 2 - primary master: Grub MBR & NT Bootsector. Windows XP System, NTFS, 38GB. Linux Swap, 2GB. Primary slave - DVD-ROM. Disk 3 - secondary master: Linux System, ReiserFS, 38GB. Windows swap, NTFS, 2GB. Secondary slave - DVD+-RW Implementation: The partitions on disks 1 & 3 should be divided into the relevant Linux mount points. Simply allow the Fedora installer to decide the allocation. In order to install Fedora (Core 1) onto ReiserFS partitions do the following: Proceed with a main installation type (Desktop, Server etc). After the install has finished, reboot from Fedora Disc 1 again, but this time type "linux rescue" at the boot prompt. Do not attempt to "find" any Linux installations. Type "cat /proc/partitions" and then use mkreiserfs on each of the listed partitions on disk 3 (excluding the one NTFS partition). You will then need to repeat the installation, but this time do not use an install profile, manually specify the partitions you have just converted. I haven't tried Fedora Core 2 yet, so I don't know if they have implemented creating ReiserFS partitions at install time in that release. If that is too much hassle, just stick with ext3 partitions. Access to user data on the server provided by NFS and/or Samba for both Windows and Linux clients. Disk imaging performed on a regular basis in order to minimise downtime in the event of hardware failure or other disaster. Possibility of configuring squid, apache, privoxy, sendmail, iptables and other services on the server for client use. Additional recommendations: Consider moving the server to OpenBSD in the future. Physically remove disk 4 (USB) when not in use. Store in another room. Develop a backup policy and stick to it (simple 1 2 3 method will do). Future expansion: Upgrade disks 4, 5 and 6 in tandem, identical sizes. Upgrade disk 7, whenever disks 1, 2 or 3 are upgraded. (i.e. sizeof [7] = sizeof [1+2+3]) Target analysis: Server: System files - NTFS Disk 1 (Using Linux/ReiserFS for server). Programs, Shared files, Documents, ... Windows swap files - NTFS Disk 5 for shared files & documents (user data), programs under /usr on disk 1, swapfile on disk 7/partition 1. MP3, Archival + Windows swap Disk 5 for MP3 (user data), disk 4 for archival (data backup), Swap file on disk 7/partition 1. Backup & Transfer - FAT Disk 4 for file backup, disk 7/partition 2 for imaging, transfer through network, filesystem irrelevant - using host system optimum (ReiserFS). Client: System files - NTFS Disk 2, partition 1 Linux swap Disk 2, partition 2 Windows swap and Linux accessible Disk 3, partition 2 (Note: do not use swap partitions for other purposes, shared files accessed through server) Fedora Linux - Reiser FS Disk 3, partition 1 Hope that helps, - [H]omer PS - If you must Xpost, please set a followup. (Followups set to alt.comp.hardware) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"[H]omer" wrote in message news On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:05 +0000, Noozer wrote: - Increase the snappyness of my PC - Increase storage space on server - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC Rather than increase storage space, I'd recommend that you better utilise the space you already have first. Also, why use Windows for the server? A server's OS should be transparent to the client, so it doesn't matter one way or the other ... except from the point of view of cost, available services, administration, security and stability. Since you're installing Fedora on the client anyway, just make the server a Linux system too (although OpenBSD would be even better for a server). Why are you replying in English? Why not reply in Japanese or Swahili? : ) I know Windows. I don't know Linux (yet). I would not trust a server that I couldn't administrate properly. I do plan on moving away from Windows eventually, but since I have a legitimate copy of Win2K3 server, why not use it? I do plan on putting a Linux server up eventually, but not until I know what's going on under the hood. I've seen too many Linux boxes "rooted" even after being configured by an "expert". Bear in mind, that a true server is not a machine that you sit down in front of and play solitaire, it's supposed to be invisible and silent - usually without even a mouse, keyboard or monitor, but rather accessed and administered remotely. It sits in my basement serving my document files to the LAN and webpages/FTP to the internet. Very low bandwidth machine really. Terminal Services over my gigabit LAN is definately nice to use. From what you've posted here, I get the impression that the "server" is not actually on a network, but instead you are physically carrying data across in a USB drive? No, no, no, no, no! Dedicated server sitting in my basement behind two broadband cable modems going through routers. Wired network is gigabit ethernet. One router is also an 802.11b WAP and I also have an 802.11a WAP on the LAN. Server has about 8 shares open to the LAN for documents, media files, archiving, etc. Server also serves webpages, FTP and email to the internet. (DNS if I ever figure it out). LAN and Internet each have their own NIC in the server with all unecessary services disabled on each. Here's what I'd do: (Current) Requirements: 1 server (file & possibly other unspecified services). 1 client running Windows XP & Linux (dual boot). Improve client system responsiveness. Increase (or better utilise) server storage. Drives: 3 x 40GB - disks 1, 2, 3 1 x 60GB - disk 4 1 x 80GB - disk 5 1 x 120GB - disk 7 Recommendations: Buy as much memory as you can afford. Buy a second 80GB drive to Raid 0 with disk 5 - (disk 6). Replace disk 4 with an 80GB drive (sell the 60GB drive). The point is not to buy any more hardware. The fact that I have a 60gig drive sitting on the shelf shows that it's not space that I'm lacking. Other hardware required, but unspecified: 2 x NICs, min 100TX, recommend Gigabit for server at least. Network hub, min 100TX compat, recommend switch - 1GB uplink. 2 x Cat5 networking cables (Gigabit verified), unspecified length. I've posted a layout of my current network. It should clarify how my LAN is set up, but not really relevant to my original question. Go to: http://www.csd.ca/Network.gif to see my current LAN layout. Note: Until/unless you need to access the server from more than one client, you can skip buying a hub/switch and just use crossover cable to connect the machines together directly. You can always add a hub/switch later (but bear in mind you'll need different cables). Server: Disk 1 - primary master: Grub MBR Linux System, ReiserFS, 40GB. (Running Samba and/or NFS.) Primary slave - DVD-ROM. Disk 5 - secondary master: User Data, ReiserFS, 80GB. Disk 7 - secondary slave: Linux Swap, 2GB. Imaging partition, ReiserFS, 118GB. (Perform regular image backups, using dd, of non-swap partitions from disks 1, 2 & 3). Disk 4 - USB External: Data Backup from disk 5, ReiserFS, 60GB (80GB?) (compressed file backups). Like I said previously, the server may eventually run Linux, but not until I'm confortable with it. I've also left optical drives out of the equation. I've got a 52x CDRW in a USB2 enclosure and a 4x DVDRW in a Firewire/USB2 enclosure. They are moved to machines as they are needed. I should also have mentioned that I'll probably use the XP Boot menu to switch between XP and Linux. Again it's just a matter of what I'm familiar with. Client: Disk 2 - primary master: Grub MBR & NT Bootsector. Windows XP System, NTFS, 38GB. Linux Swap, 2GB. Primary slave - DVD-ROM. Disk 3 - secondary master: Linux System, ReiserFS, 38GB. Windows swap, NTFS, 2GB. Secondary slave - DVD+-RW Implementation: The partitions on disks 1 & 3 should be divided into the relevant Linux mount points. Simply allow the Fedora installer to decide the allocation. In order to install Fedora (Core 1) onto ReiserFS partitions do the following: snip I haven't tried Fedora Core 2 yet, so I don't know if they have implemented creating ReiserFS partitions at install time in that release. Reiser what available to Suse and Mandrake, so I didn't consider that I might not be able to use it with Fedora. ext3 would be my next choice. snip Additional recommendations: Consider moving the server to OpenBSD in the future. Definately a consideration. I know OpenBSD is quite secure. Physically remove disk 4 (USB) when not in use. Store in another room. Develop a backup policy and stick to it (simple 1 2 3 method will do). The data we have is not that critical. I've used computers long enough not to trust them (or users) with information that is critical. : ) Future expansion: Upgrade disks 4, 5 and 6 in tandem, identical sizes. Upgrade disk 7, whenever disks 1, 2 or 3 are upgraded. (i.e. sizeof [7] = sizeof [1+2+3]) Ack! This started out as a simple reallocation of my current hardware. snip Hope that helps, Definately... and it is appreciated! PS - If you must Xpost, please set a followup. (Followups set to alt.comp.hardware) I've had this argument before. I watch all the groups I've posted to and I only post to groups that are related to the subject. For example, I'm sure your post would be helpful or recieve some good feedback if it had stayed in the Linux group. (And Outlook Express is a crappy news client, but it's the best I can find) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 22 May 2004 06:31:21 +0000, Noozer wrote:
"[H]omer" wrote in message news Why use Windows for the server? I know Windows. I don't know Linux (yet). I would not trust a server that I couldn't administrate properly. I do plan on moving away from Windows eventually, but since I have a legitimate copy of Win2K3 server, why not use it? Honestly, it's not that difficult. In fact (and in IME) I've found administering Windows as a server considerably more difficult than either Linux or *BSD. You've got a distro, try it. It will take a while to learn, but once you have, you'll wonder how you could possibly have ever tolerated Windows as a server. IMHO Windows is a *great* gaming and multimedia platform ... but it's not a server - not even Win2K. I do plan on putting a Linux server up eventually, but not until I know what's going on under the hood. I've seen too many Linux boxes "rooted" even after being configured by an "expert". In 20+ years of, first UNIX, then GNU/Linux administration, I've yet to see a rootkit penetrate my defences. My experience of Microsoft servers has not been as comfortable. In fact, I refuse to work with them at all now. Bear in mind, that a true server is not a machine that you sit down in front of and play solitaire, it's supposed to be invisible and silent - It sits in my basement serving my document files to the LAN and webpages/FTP to the internet. Very low bandwidth machine really. Terminal Services over my gigabit LAN is definately nice to use. Ah OK, so you've already got a well established network. It should simply be a question of swapping disks, partitioning and re-installing then. Here's what I'd do: Drives: 3 x 40GB - disks 1, 2, 3 1 x 60GB - disk 4 1 x 80GB - disk 5 1 x 120GB - disk 7 Recommendations: Buy as much memory as you can afford. Buy a second 80GB drive to Raid 0 with disk 5 - (disk 6). Replace disk 4 with an 80GB drive (sell the 60GB drive). The point is not to buy any more hardware. The fact that I have a 60gig drive sitting on the shelf shows that it's not space that I'm lacking. The suggested drive configuration, uses only the hardware you've already got, however I simply recommended one additional drive and one replacement drive for the sake of a) speed and b) backup. Useful, but not necessary. Server: Disk 1 - primary master: Grub MBR Linux System, ReiserFS, 40GB. (Running Samba and/or NFS.) Like I said previously, the server may eventually run Linux, but not until I'm confortable with it. Sure, I appreciate that. Simply replace Linux/ReiserFS with Win2K/NTFS in the suggested layout, but please hurry up and learn about Linux I've also left optical drives out of the equation. I've got a 52x CDRW in a USB2 enclosure and a 4x DVDRW in a Firewire/USB2 enclosure. They are moved to machines as they are needed. I take it your systems can boot from optical drives connected via USB/Firewire then? (For the purpose of installing the OS, and disaster recovery) I should also have mentioned that I'll probably use the XP Boot menu to switch between XP and Linux. Again it's just a matter of what I'm familiar with. AFAIK, neither the Win2K nor the XP ntldr supports booting to anything other than Microsoft Operating Systems. If you're set on using a proprietary solution, then you'll need PowerQuest's BootMagic, however GRUB is more versatile, more Linux friendly, and free. In order to install Fedora (Core 1) onto ReiserFS partitions do the following: snip Reiser what available to Suse and Mandrake, so I didn't consider that I might not be able to use it with Fedora. ext3 would be my next choice. It is a pain, but for reasons best known to the folks at Fedora/Red Hat, they have (until now) made using ReiserFS unnecessarily difficult. Additional recommendations: Consider moving the server to OpenBSD in the future. Definately a consideration. I know OpenBSD is quite secure. LOL! *There's* a quote for the OpenBSD developers mailing list. Physically remove disk 4 (USB) when not in use. Store in another room. Develop a backup policy and stick to it (simple 1 2 3 method will do). The data we have is not that critical. I've used computers long enough not to trust them (or users) with information that is critical. : ) I may be a bit paranoid with computer data, but let's put it this way: you'll miss it when it's gone. Future expansion: Upgrade disks 4, 5 and 6 in tandem, identical sizes. Upgrade disk 7, whenever disks 1, 2 or 3 are upgraded. (i.e. sizeof [7] = sizeof [1+2+3]) Ack! This started out as a simple reallocation of my current hardware. Disk 4 is your all-important user data (the server's raison d'ĂȘtre), you need to a) make it as fast as possible and b) back it up religiously. That's what the 3 disk arrangement is about. Disks 1, 2 and 3 are system disks. If any of them bite the dust then you'll need to reinstall the respective OS (possibly on a replacement disk). What would you rather do, spend the whole day installing Operating Systems, or spend less than an hour restoring disk images? Hope that helps, Definately... and it is appreciated! No problem, and have fun with your Fedora distro. PS - If you must Xpost, please set a followup. I've had this argument before. I watch all the groups I've posted to Ah yes, but by not setting the followup you are forcing everyone else to watch those groups also ... unless they're happy to watch threads appear and disappear half way through a conversation, usually out of context, and therefore meaningless. - [H]omer |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:05 GMT As another one bit the dust "Noozer"
wrote : I'm moving drives between my PC, my server and my spares. I'm hoping to hear a few opinions about what I'm trying to improve... What I want, from most important to least. - Increase the snappyness of my PC] http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/startup.html http://www.sysinfo.org/startupinfo.php http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/house.html - Increase storage space on server Buy a DVD/RW - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC Dunno :/ -- Free Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html email shepATpartyheld.de Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Shep©" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:05 GMT As another one bit the dust "Noozer" wrote : I'm moving drives between my PC, my server and my spares. I'm hoping to hear a few opinions about what I'm trying to improve... What I want, from most important to least. - Increase the snappyness of my PC] http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/startup.html http://www.sysinfo.org/startupinfo.php http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/house.html Thanks for the links... Will check them out shortly. - Increase storage space on server Buy a DVD/RW Awww... Another one??? I already have a firewire/USB2 DVDRW and two CDRWs... How is having another going to help the server hold more files? - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC Dunno :/ Me neither, but I'm gonna find out! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If yer server is gonna be a TRUE server, I'd change the configuration.
Make the current server your PC...make your current PC the server. Then kick the memory up...to a coupla gig if you can. Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there and I've already got too many HDDs!!! You'd want that Raptor on the server...not on your machine. And I'd get the 72 gig...whenever you can. Why? "Server" does not equal "heavy load". There are currently two client PC's on the LAN and less than 20 hits per day on the internet services. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Trent©" wrote in message ... On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:07:17 GMT, "Noozer" wrote: If yer server is gonna be a TRUE server, I'd change the configuration. Make the current server your PC...make your current PC the server. Then kick the memory up...to a coupla gig if you can. Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there and I've already got too many HDDs!!! You'd want that Raptor on the server...not on your machine. And I'd get the 72 gig...whenever you can. Why? "Server" does not equal "heavy load". There are currently two client PC's on the LAN and less than 20 hits per day on the internet services. Why WHAT? What's yer question? Why do I want to put all that horsepower into a server that see's little use? ....and it was more sarcasm than a question. : ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
current/voltage peak: HD & PD drive dead | ~misfit~ | General | 7 | May 15th 04 08:21 PM |
Drive Configuration | David Routh | General | 1 | March 25th 04 05:45 PM |
Mysterious Hard Drive Problem | Bill Anderson | General | 4 | January 18th 04 03:43 AM |
Multi-boot Windows XP without special software | Timothy Daniels | General | 11 | December 12th 03 05:38 AM |
Help! WinXP can't tell that my 2nd hard drive is already formatted | FitPhillyGuy | General | 12 | September 26th 03 03:38 AM |