Dedicated home server or print servers & ext hdd?

[Grit]

I want to set up an external data storage solution that will allow high speed access to shared files (mp3, photos, etc). I have two desktop computers and one wireless notebook. I also want to share two printers (one laser, one photo ink printer). Finally, I want to use a networked backup solution to image the hdd's of all three computers (think Norton Ghost, Acronis, etc.). I intend to connect the computers via wired gigabit and via 802.11g or 802.11n.


My two possibilities are as follows, and I need some help on which is best:

1) Make a home server running windows xp. Plug the printers into the server and share via the OS. Use HDD space as shared to store data.

2) Use an external HDD for shared storage and backup and connect via gigabit ethernet. Buy printers with on-board networking OR buy print servers and connect to network (only 10/100 ethernet appears to be available).

I could use some help on pros/cons. Also, for simply functioning as a server, that computer needs limited resourses, right? Say a slow CPU and maybe 1 gb of ram?

 

[JackMDS]

It is a mixed bag situation.

As far as printers are concerned you are better of with Network printers, provided they are real Network ready printers, and not a regular printer with add on 3rd party server (http://www.ezlan.net/prtserver.html ).

NAS is a good solution too, however you have to be prepared to spend over $300 to get a Fast one, and you have to research and make sure that it can do file format wise and sharing what your system need (Almost all sub $1000 NAS' are based on Linux firmware and have variety of constrains when it come to share with Windows).

A very good solution should be arriving in few months. Microsoft is in a beta stage of Windows Home Server (WHS).

WHS is going to be a subset of a real Server OS adapted to Home and media needs.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/produc...nfamily/windowshomeserver/default.mspx

So for now, if electricity is not expensive in your local, and you have a spare computer (P-III and above) you might be better of with a dedicated computer using Win2000, or WinXP.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Grit
2) Use an external HDD for shared storage and backup and connect via gigabit ethernet. Buy printers with on-board networking OR buy print servers and connect to network (only 10/100 ethernet appears to be available).

There's no such thing as a simple external HD with gigabit networking. If it can do this, it's a NAS, and has an OS, CPU, NIC, etc.. And at low prices, odds are that its performance won't be as good as a well-designed DIY gigabit-level computer.

Everything matters in the design of gigabit-level file servers. You can't use the old assumptions of any old CPU and drive, etc., will do. This might have been fine in the 100 Mb/s days, but gigabit potentially stresses the system, esp. at the lower budget levels where the storage controller doesn't have its own dedicated CPU, the NIC might have high CPU utilization, the file transfer tool / application / OS might not be tuned to gigabit level network throughput, etc..

XP < 2003 ~ XP-64 < Vista in some file server performance tests. However Vista is not fully baked yet. Vista has SMB 2.0 and other relevant performance improvements. Linux has SMB 2.0 support under development.

 

[Grit]

Any recommendations for minimums? CPU, RAM, etc?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Grit
Any recommendations for minimums? CPU, RAM, etc?

Anything goes. You pays your money, and pays for your power consumption, and you get whatever performance you're going to get. A sub-1 GHz CPU and 256 MiB RAM setup will work. How fast depends on many non-trivial factors -- generalizing network performance using one dimension, just the CPU or RAM, is impossible.

To cut to the chase, modern CPUs at the low end are dirt cheap, and are fine in terms of performance for gigabit level file servers. They also have the added benefit of being compatible with modern motherboards, which typically perform better than older ones and give better compatibility and support, etc.

An AMD X2 3600+ for example is a terrific value, and (if you're going down that platform) when you can get it for $70, I don't see the sense of trying to save $20 or so for example and be stuck with an older platform / etc..

Power consumption might be a valid counter-argument, but it's complex. Less power consumption in new designs + power-saving modes + getting the job done in less time + turning off / sleep mode can level the field a great deal. A low-performance, low-power CPU, as in a consumer NAS box will do better in power consumption, and if that's all that matters to you and you have converted every light bulb to CFL, etc., so the few final watts are important to you, then you might want to go down that path. I'd suggest starting with a Kill-a-Watt meter or something similar -- around $30. If you're concerned about this dimension, you should have one, so that you're optimizing it best with real consumption data, not just gut feeling.

I believe that the higher-end consumer NAS boxes ship with around 256 MiB of RAM. Installing more RAM is not likely to make them faster, except when smaller files are accessed over and over again from cache. This question is more about "what sort of file re-access footprint do I have?" instead of a general "how much RAM in general should I use on a file server". You hit the basic threshold where the system is not starved for RAM and performs decently, then you can add as much RAM as you like for a buffer / file system cache.

I'm not running any systems here with less than 512 MiB RAM. I've benched single core Athlons running with 512 MiB, and with these gotten good gigabit-level performance (far out-performing any consumer NAS box I've seen benched), so would put that amount as my personal minimum. In practice, I tend to go with 1 GiB, just as I go with affordable dual cores, just for a comfort zone for my performance-hungry tendency.