Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)

[Rod Speed]

So you just want to disagree with everything I just said, eh
Nope.

Since the OP was contemplating just an enclosure, it seems
that running a gui on his network storage box is not a big priority
for him, thus as most any mobo supporting a P2 will likely to
be able to support at least 128M ram, he should be more
than fine with that amount of memory for running a file server

Pity that its obviously going to be a lot easier
if it can run the OS he is already familiar with.

Again, in the context of the OP, he states having a mixed network at
home of Linux and WinXP. Seems he should be able to handle a little
web based configuration of samba with webmin, no? He has obviously
set up a network and wifi as well, so give the dude a little credit

It aint just about the OP and his capabilitys.

I guess this could be debated endlessly,
Nope.

so I will just say that it is my preference to
have OS on separate drive on my file servers,

More fool you.

even to the point of mounting some portions
read only or using flash devices for OS portion.

More fool you in spades.

 

[CJT]

Pity that its obviously going to be a lot easier
if it can run the OS he is already familiar with.

.... which in the case of the OP allows for several choices.

It aint just about the OP and his capabilitys.




More fool you.




More fool you in spades.

Huh? I think it's pretty much accepted practice to put the OS on
a separate drive. Why would you think that's foolish? It seems
to me like the obvious thing to do, and for multiple reasons (e.g. it
allows easier swapping of drives between hardware, the use of different
levels of RAID for the OS from that used on the user data, cleaner
backup strategies, improved ability to judiciously use read-only mounts,
better head movement statistics, etc.).

Other than a small additional cost, I can't think of any reasons NOT to
do it that way.

 

[alo]

Hi all,

I have 5 desktop machines running a mix of Linux and XP on my network
at home. Two are wired the rest are wireless (g). Am thinking about
adding a Network storage unit, firstly does anyone have any
suggestions.. something not too expensive.

Stick with a wired PC based stoage system.

Have a look at NASlite at Server Elements:
http://www.serverelements.com/

You get to use your old PC and a new bigger HD if required (or two).
Simple to set up, and if you want to keep costs down even further have
a look at SyncBack for your backup software.

Regards

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

... which in the case of the OP allows for several choices.

Huh? I think it's pretty much accepted practice to put the OS on a separate
drive.

No it isnt. In spades with using a flash device.

Why would you think that's foolish?

Waste of time with modern systems. The OS is only loaded
of the HD at boot time with a system which has enough physical
ram and so there is no point in having a separate drive for it.

No point whatever in a read only or flash drive.

It seems to me like the obvious thing to do,
Nope.

and for multiple reasons (e.g. it allows easier swapping of drives between
hardware,

Thats marginal, not worth the farting around for that IMO.

the use of different levels of RAID for the OS from that used on the user
data,

What is the point ? Makes a lot more sense to ensure that its got enough
physical ram so you dont need a different RAID for the OS instead.

cleaner backup strategies,

Wrong. You can do that fine with a separate
partition instead of a separate physical drive.

improved ability to judiciously use read-only mounts,

You can do that fine without a separate physical drive
and its basically a waste of time with a decent OS anyway.

better head movement statistics, etc.).

Wrong. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to
ensure that its got enough physical ram instead.

Other than a small additional cost, I can't think of any reasons NOT to do it
that way.

That smaller drive will normally have worse performance
than the larger drive, its not as easy to ensure that the
drives have adequate cooling in the smaller cases that
dont have enough 3.5" drive bay slots to allow a free
slot between drives, drives that are small enough for
even something like XP 2003 server are so old and
dinosaury that their performance is obscene, you limit
the number of big drives you can install without farting
around with addon controllers, etc etc etc.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Whoa. Déjà Vu! - complete with Folkert & Arno:

Aren't you forgetting the other one?

http://tinyurl.com/delsh
Only this time David isn't here for the answer.

Who in his usual bright way started with disagreeing with
Arnie but in his explanation then actually agreed with him.
David Lethe is not exactly one of the s.m.a.r.t.est persons.

And he did say "many" are too simple to support SMART,
not that it is impossible, as in:
" SMART doesn't work on external drives..."

Personally, I think Arnie hit the nail on the head,
with David just supporting what Arnie said.

Eric is just plain wrong as there are other commands in ATA
that also have no direct equivalents in SCSI either but are
likely emulated in SCSI, s.a. Inquiry and Read Capacity.
He is correct in that there is no 1:1 SMART equivalent.

There is a Subclass code 06h called SCSI transparent command
set that might be used to transport mode_sense/mode_select
commands as used with SCSI SMART. But as David said the
"dongle" has to do full SCSI emulation for that to work.
(Btw, according to one site that set is used by most all bridges).

Another way would be a proprietary driver on top of the USB
driver that just passes through IDE commands to the bridge
chip (similar as the SMART driver does with standard IDE)
which the bridge then would have to understand to pass this
through to the IDE device without conversion.
This would be along Arnies lines of ideas.

I think
http://www.freescale.com/files/microcontrollers/doc/ref_manual/DRM062.pdf
"Chapter 8 ATA/ATAPI Driver" may refer to such a proprietary driver.



Curious's Déjà Vu: (quoted)

 

[max]

I am also contemplating wifi or not, moving data (5mp pictures etc.)
round could be really slow when going wireless even if it's 54Mbps.

Would appreciate any feedback on brands/models etc that anyone has
experience with. I have a new 300G Maxtor IDE that I could put into
whatever new enclosure I buy for starters.

If you just want a simple, standalone network HD, Iomega makes some
that are a good choice for the money. I've had a couple of them
running for a while now on a WinXP network with no major issues.

One's a 250G Iomega 100D with wireless, the other's a 160G Network HD.
The Network HD is simpler and slower, and the 100D is more
configurable and faster. I disabled the wireless on the 100D because
it's too slow for what I'm using it for and it only has WEP security,
so both are connected to a network switch.

The main problem I've had with them is they don't power back up after
a power outage and you have to go turn them back on. Both are fan
cooled; the 100D enclosure is rather big and noisier. My Network HD
isn't USB expandable, but the newer ones are, as is the 100D.

Iomega sometimes has them on their factory outlet (but I don't see
them there right now), and they sometimes sell refurbished ones on
ebay as well.
http://www.iomega.com/direct/outlet/landing.jsp

max

 

[Mike Redrobe]

And he did say "many" are too simple to support SMART,
not that it is impossible, as in:
" SMART doesn't work on external drives..."

...which states it doesn't /currently/ work, not that it never will.
That's the situation for usb/firewire external drives /at present/.

Can you read SMART info from an external drive *today*?
No.

Many of the external network drives use linux, so as someone
said, it might be currently possible to query SMART directly
on the unit for those.

 

[Mike Redrobe]

Then maybe that is what you should have said in the first place.

I did use the present tense "doesn't", not the future "never will".

The fact that I can't prove that there is no bridge currently
that supports it, that is not then proof that it is nonexistent.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

..which states it doesn't /currently/ work, not that it never will.
That's the situation for usb/firewire external drives /at present/.

Then maybe that is what you should have said in the first place.

Can you read SMART info from an external drive *today*?

No.

There you go again.
The fact that I can't prove that there is no bridge currently
that supports it, that is not then proof that it is nonexistent.

And as far as Firewire goes, I get the impression that the 1394 Tailgate
is much like SATA so it shouldn't be so difficult to provide a S.M.A.R.T.
driver for it.