Best drive configuration?

[Noozer]

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

Spare: 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!!!

 

[P Gentry]

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?

Spare: 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

 

[Noozer]

What I want, from most important to least.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

 

[[H]omer]

- 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)

 

[Noozer]

- 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:

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.

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.

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)

 

[[H]omer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Definately a consideration. I know OpenBSD is quite secure.

LOL! *There's* a quote for the OpenBSD developers mailing list.

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'être), 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?

Definately... and it is appreciated!

No problem, and have fun with your Fedora distro.

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

 

[Shep©]

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

 

[Noozer]

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.

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?

Dunno :/

Me neither, but I'm gonna find out!

 

[Trent©]

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

Spare: 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?

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.

Good luck.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Noozer]

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.


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.

 

[Trent©]

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?


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Noozer]

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. : )

 

[kony]

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. : )

But it is a good question, since a P200, 64MB of memory, and Linux is all
you probably need.

 

[Trent©]

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. : )

I understand. lol

Seriously...am I missing something here?

You said yer gonna use it as a server. Why wouldn't you make the
server the fastest machine in the system...since its gonna run the
programs for all the nodes?

I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Noozer]

You said yer gonna use it as a server. Why wouldn't you make the

server the fastest machine in the system...since its gonna run the
programs for all the nodes?

Servers don't run programs (unless they are scripts on webpages, or services
such an POP3 or HTTP, etc.). They just hold the files that get loaded by the
client machines.

I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.

Your talking about Terminal Server. That runs everything on the server and
just draws the screen over the network... Not very efficient really.

 

[Stacey]

But it is a good question, since a P200, 64MB of memory, and Linux is all
you probably need.

My "server" is a pentium 233 128Mb running linux and it's fine. It's
faster than a 10/100 nic card!

 

[Stacey]

Trent© wrote:

Seriously...am I missing something here?

Yes. You don't know what a server is.

You said yer gonna use it as a server. Why wouldn't you make the
server the fastest machine in the system...since its gonna run the
programs for all the nodes?

?? What kind of server nowadays does that?

I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.

Like who runs a "real server" that the programs run from them to a terminal?
You're talking about "main frame" setups from 30 years ago.. Either machine
is going to be MUCH faster than trying to run software over a 10/100
network, if you had ever done this you'd know that. Now maybe if one of the
machines was a 486...

I set up a virtual desktop on my pentium 133 laptop to use a 2.8C P4
downstairs to see what kind of speed increase I could get, just passing the
desktop/video over a 10/100 network was slower than the P133 runs by
itself.

 

[Trent©]

Servers don't run programs (unless they are scripts on webpages, or services
such an POP3 or HTTP, etc.). They just hold the files that get loaded by the
client machines.

Mine does. My programs reside and run off the server. Only the ini
and some related files sit on the nodes.

Interesting.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Trent©]

Trent© wrote:



Yes. You don't know what a server is.

Well...I think I DO. Obviously, I have a different definition than
Noozer. Usually, a server holds the program...so that many different
locations can share the files and work with them simultaneously.

He did say he was running server software on it. That's what made me
think it was going to be a true server...not just a primary machine
and a secondary machine.

?? What kind of server nowadays does that?

I don't know. ALL of them? Again, that's why I asked. My server
holds the programs...and my other machines run the programs from that
server.

Like who runs a "real server" that the programs run from them to a terminal?

Me. lol

And many others, I would guess.

You're talking about "main frame" setups from 30 years ago..

Yes, I am. But I didn't think the name...nor concept...had changed.




Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Trent©]

Servers don't run programs (unless they are scripts on webpages, or services
such an POP3 or HTTP, etc.). They just hold the files that get loaded by the
client machines.

I run most of my programs from my server.

Why are you gonna be running server software? Isn't there a purpose
for server software?...beyond what yer actually trying to do here?

Do you really need a server OS...if yer just gonna store files on the
'server'?

Your talking about Terminal Server. That runs everything on the server and
just draws the screen over the network... Not very efficient really.

4 gig or so of RAM on the fastest CPU seems like a pretty efficient
idea to me.

Maybe I just need to take an A+ course somewhere! lol

Anyway, I just thought I'd ask...actually, suggest. Now I have a
better understanding of how you have your system set up.

Good luck.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!