Home network suggestions

[vetteguy]

I need some opinions on where to go with my home network. Here is the setup I currently have:

Cable Modem
Cable Router/Switch/Wireless Access Point
1 primary PC connecter to the switch (over Cat 5)
2 laptops using a wireless PC Card (only ever use one at a time though)
Compaq iPAQ accessing the network with a Wireless PC Card

So basically right now I have all my files stored on my main PC, and if I'm using my laptop(s) and/or iPAQ it's mainly to access the internet. I would like to set up a server to perform the following functions:

1. Store all my files in a central location (for easy access no matter what machine I'm on)
2. Share printer(s) (Currently I'm sharing them off my main machine, but if I have it turned off and am on my laptop I'm out of luck)
3. Backup files (haven't decided on a backup method to use, currently I burn CD's but I have 2 40G hard drives so that's not working so well)
4. Provide extra level of security for personal files (even though I have a hardware firewall the main machine I access the internet through holds all of my files.)

I would like to limit the server's access to the internet as outgoing only (I think I can do that in the firewall) or maybe not at all (I guess there really isn't a reason for it to need internet access, maybe for downloading updates, etc.)

My questions are, what do you think would be a good OS for my server? I run Win2k on 2 of my 3 machines now, so that would make things easier. I'm going to upgrade to XP next month so that's another possibility. I thought about Linux, but do I really need to go to that much trouble for file/printer sharing/backup? (I'm thinking of installation/administration ease, since I'm primarily a Windows person).

Also, what about backup? I'be though about OnStream or something similar. Any suggestions there? I appreciate anyone's insight. Thanks in advance!!!

 

[Tallgeese]

W2K, since you are familiar with it. Administrative mode Terminal Services is NICE.

*prepared for an onslaught of *nix advocates to rain epithets on the heads of me and my offspring*

 

[Nightfall]

I would recommend running Win2k server myself since you are already familiar with Win2k. WinXP would be nice as well, but that isn't coming out in a server platform until late next year. If you don't want to run Win2k server, just run Win2k Professional and do file and printer sharing.

I am not a linux fan myself, and if you don't know much about it, you will spend a lot of time learning and screwing around with it. If you want to run linux eventually, then build a Win2k server and then play with linux on another machine. If you think it is better, then you can use that instead of your Win2k server.

Backup is expensive. I picked up a HP DAT24 tape drive on ebay for cheap as well as some tapes and it works pretty good. If you go with Win2k server, you can use Veritas Backup Exec or something like that for backups. Really though, I do a backup every month or so of key files and that is it. I used to have a onstream tape drive and it ran real well. The HP is SCSI and runs a lot faster.

 

[vetteguy]

I've been leaning towards Win2k actually. Would there be any advantage for such a small network to use Win2k Server? With a max of 4 machines accessing it at any time I don't see why Pro couldn't be used. Plus I already have Pro and wouldn't have to drop another $200 for Server.
Nightfall, how much did you spend on your backup solution? I like the Onstream stuff but it still seems a little pricey. I have an extra SCSI adapter laying around I could use for the DAT drive. How much do the tapes hold?

 

[Nightfall]

I bought the DAT tape drive off ebay for $300 for a refurbished model. It is a nice tape drive, but if I want to do a backup of my mp3s, I have to put in 2 tapes because it only backs up 12gig uncompressed and 24gig compressed. MP3's can't be compressed much. Oh well.

If I could have afforded a 80 gig backup unit, I would have done it.

In my opinion, I spent just enough for my backup solution. I won't put much more than that in it because I don't see a benefit to it, unless my hard disk crashes. However, if I have a backup once a week or so, then I am ready to rock and roll.

 

[Tallgeese]

<< With a max of 4 machines accessing it at any time I don't see why Pro couldn't be used. >>

The only material differences that I can think of are:

* Pro maxes out at 10 concurrent connection, Server does not (you already touch on this as a non-issue)
* Pro does not include Terminal Services, Server does
* Pro cannot offer certain network services like DHCP, WINS, DNS, etc.
* Pro is pricey, Server is hella expensive

 

[vetteguy]

Well, I won't be needing WINS, DNS, and DHCP is done by my router so that pretty much leaves me to think I'll stick with Pro. I can see MAYBE using Terminal Services to administer from other places in the house, but if that's the only advantage I could run PCAnywhere and just fire it up when I need it. The main reason for wanting to do this is I don't plan on having a monitor for the server (I don't have a spare one and it seems a needless expense).

As far as backup, I was looking at the HP DAT24, and it's similar in price to the new OnStream drives and they actually have a faster transfer rate, so I might look into one of those. (Once I pay off my new components and buy my new iPAQ and get my Ericcson T39 and my girlfriend a ring...sheesh!!!)

 

[Tallgeese]

<< I could run PCAnywhere and just fire it up when I need it. >>

Better yet, use VNC, which is free.