For my file server.... Celeron 2.4 or P4 1.6???

[bluemaverick]

For my file server tower... Celeron 2.4 or P4 1.6??? Any advice? Thank you!

 

[phaxmohdem]

Answer this:

1. What is your budget for this system?
2. What parts do you already have for this system?
3. Are you willing to purchase new parts for the system?
4. How many users will be hitting this system?

 

[phaxmohdem]

Also perhaps Anandtech could help answer this for you:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1927&p=4

For my personal file-server I have an Athlon XP 2600 (non barton) and it kicks ass. Even on this stock 10/100 MBps ethernet it is fast, and I can stream my mp3 collection to any computer in the house. My recommendation would be to get a cheap socket A motherboard and CPU if that is in the cards

 

[NokiaDude]

The Celeron D's are very strong performers for the money.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think he has those two processors and is trying to figure out which one to use. I'd use the Celeron because those first Pentium 4's were pretty crappy... the 800 MHz clockspeed advantage that Celeron has is probably more than enough to make up for the smaller cache.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I dont see any purpose in a big processor period. Just get a tiny processor, 256MB of memory, a small Linux distribution, and run it.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I dont see any purpose in a big processor period. Just get a tiny processor, 256MB of memory, a small Linux distribution, and run it.

do you actually know what you are talking about

 

[RichUK]

i would say the Celeron, as the file print server does not need no where near as much power/speed as an exchange or SQL server, so that should suffice, infact both processors would be alright, but depends on how big your user base is (how many clients it will be serving)

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I dont see any purpose in a big processor period. Just get a tiny processor, 256MB of memory, a small Linux distribution, and run it.

do you actually know what you are talking about

Yeah I do. Do you not understand what I'm talking about?

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
I dont see any purpose in a big processor period. Just get a tiny processor, 256MB of memory, a small Linux distribution, and run it.

do you actually know what you are talking about

Yeah I do. Do you not understand what I'm talking about?

please explain and what field of work are you in?

EDIT: typos

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Explanation- A Fileserver does not require much processing power to run. Therefore a large processor is not required. If the server is shoving out files then a large amount of memory is not required. And you dont have to get Win XP Pro/Home or Windows Server when a small linux distribution can run it.

Field of Work- Student in the 11th grade

Your turn now P.S. A raptor is only "Damn fast" when accessing. It is only marginally faster in constant throughput.

 

[josh1413]

He is right. I have my P3 700Mhz w/256MB Ram acting as my file server, and it does great! No need for a super fast CPU, just make sure your network card is 100Mbit.

 

[Zap]

My file server is a Tualatin Celeron around 1GHz or so. Works fine. I do agree that a super fast CPU is not needed for a strictly file server, but if you use Windows then don't get too slow a CPU. My VIA C3 933MHz machine transfers files slower than my file server and my A64 setup transfers faster (testing to either another A64 or a P4 over 3GHz). Similar modern HDDs are used and the slower machines have 3Com PCI NICs while others have whatever integrated.

As for the OP, if the P4 is actually a 1.6A Northwood, use that. Otherwise use the Celeron. Still, even a Willamette core chip should work fine. Whatever, flip a coin if you already own both.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Explanation- A Fileserver does not require much processing power to run. Therefore a large processor is not required. If the server is shoving out files then a large amount of memory is not required. And you dont have to get Win XP Pro/Home or Windows Server when a small linux distribution can run it.

Field of Work- Student in the 11th grade

Your turn now P.S. A raptor is only "Damn fast" when accessing. It is only marginally faster in constant throughput.

Ok that is just a reiteration of what i had previously posted (below), and yes my raptor is considerably faster than my old 40gig 5400rpm 2Mb buffer pieceo crap

i would say the Celeron, as the file print server does not need no where near as much power/speed as an exchange or SQL server, so that should suffice, in fact both processors would be alright, but depends on how big your user base is (how many clients it will be serving)

after re-reading you first post

I dont see any purpose in a big processor period. Just get a tiny processor, 256MB of memory, a small Linux distribution, and run it.

i originally read you statement with regards to "I dont see any purpose in a big processor period", as plural, thinking you meant processors in general with regards to a server environment, so i apologise for that, my mistake. So as for that much i agree, as the File Print servers i deal with are P3's with 512 - 1024Mb's of RAM running NT4 and 2000 advance. But with regards to Linux, i wouldn't know as i only deal with NT4 server and server 2000 advance.

and my field of work - 2nd line Technical Support, as part of a "Systems Management" team that looks after "server operation and maintenance" for a user base of about 115,000 users throughout Europe..

 

[elcamino74ss]

for file serving you dont need much at all. I run win2k3 as a dc with sql 2000 on a dual p2 400 with 1gb of ram.

I just use it for testing and proof of concept but for home use its plenty.