Want to share data between PCs, laptop

[Muse]

I have a Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 wireless router, two Windows XP PCs connected to it by ethernet and a Lenovo T60 laptop, which I connect wirelessly by its stock wireless connectivity.

I'd like to share data. I use FoxPro database for data storage, and right now I generally copy that data periodically to the laptop by flash drive. If I make changes on the laptop (e.g. add records, edit info), I send myself an email. I copy my email client's data to the laptop occasionally too. I download new emails to the laptop, but have the email client configured to leave the messages on the server so that my main PC always has the latest email data. If I send an email from my laptop, in order to retain the outbox info, I have to cc myself.

All this is a hassle, and I'd like to have central data storage. I don't want to pay a lot and don't want a solution that uses a lot of energy. For instance, my main PC consumes around 120 watts when on (I shut it off at night), but the laptop, maybe 20 watts. When the laptop is in suspend, it uses less than 2 watts.

Is it conceivable to have the data on the laptop and keep it in suspend when I'm not using it? IOW, can the laptop be wakened by a request for data from one of my PC's?

Right now I don't have the network set up to share data between the computers, but I'm pretty sure I can do that with Windows configuration and router configuration.

Or am I better off thinking in terms of a server? Are there low cost, low power consumption server solutions?

Or is an external USB HD a possible solution here? I do have a 500 GB external 16 MB cache USB 2.0 Cavalry HD, with Western Digital SATA inside. AFAIK, my Buffalo router doesn't support a connection to a USB HD, but haven't investigated that.

 

[Tbirdkid]

Not sure, but there should be an option in the bios for WOL or wake on lan. Im not exactly sure how this would work being wirelessly connected, but I know it should be an option. The other is to have network storage right off of the router.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I would go for a small nas device. You can usually pick up a no frills one at newegg on the cheap

 

[JackMDS]

Four Options.

1 - Buy a readymade NAS.,WD, Seagate, etc., make them it is an Enclosure with Network Interface and a Hard Drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822136196

You plug it to the Router config and done.

Easy inexpensive solution but limited option

2. Buy a NAS enclosure and put in your own HD ( many of these enclosures can use more than one drive ).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822165075

More expensive and almost always slower than what the specs promise. In most cases can not do NTFS on its drives.

3. Use an old computer to build your own NAS. Open source, and any variants of Windows with the correct File sharing would work well.

My favorite is an Old computer with Window Home server, http://www.ezlan.net/WHS.html

Usually more expensive to build and maintain but far superior to the other solution.

Real Giga on Giga Networks, and can do much more than a dedicated NAS.

Option 4. Same as option 3 but in order to save on energy instead of buying an Old Guzzler build a computer base4d on Intel ATOM or VIA C-7. Both take less than 50Watts.

============
*Note 1 - Each one of the methods described above has its advantage and disadvantage, search for the term and educate yourself before you make a decision.

*Noter2 - The hardware linked above is an example and not a recommendation for the specific device.

 

[Muse]

Why is a dedicated computer better than option 1 and 2?

Additional question, JackMDS: If I use a dedicated computer, can I configure it to go into suspend mode after, say, 1/2 hour of non-activity and have it wake when a request for data on the network occurs? I really want to limit the electricity costs here.

I already have a second computer, which is a midtower that sits beneath my main (midtower) PC. They are bolted together, and the top one is anchored to the wall. I very seldom use the bottom one currently, but I presume I could use it as a data server. However, I don't want to leave it running 24/7, wanting to keep my juice usage minimized. The 2nd computer runs Windows 2000 or even XP decently.

Actually, I'm doubtful I'd like this arrangement, having both computers going simultaneously, due to the additional noise pollution. My main computer is pretty quiet, the other presently comparatively loud. Even if I manage to quiet the other down, the sum total will be rather louder than just one running.

Why is an external HD data solution inferior? Wouldn't it be quieter?

 

[JackMDS]

If you just want to store files and Network Speed is Not of importance Option 1 or 2 are OK too.

Using a computer that can fall into deep sleep and wake up with Network traffic depeneds on the OS used (real servers usually do not go to sleep).

It can be done well with WinXP, and Vista, the current version of Windows Home server can reduce consumption by putting some functions on standby but it never goes into deep sleep as a whole.

However computers that are based on VIA C-7, or Intel ATOM, take only 30 to 40 Watts when idle.

 

[RebateMonger]

You can build a nearly-silent Windows Home Server on a low-power system. A prime example is the MSI Window barebones PC for $150, prebuilt with (Intel Atom) CPU, cooler, power brick, gigabit NIC, and case. It draws a measured 30 watts with hard drive installed. I just built one of these for a friend and it works great.

No matter WHAT storage solution you decide on, don't forget to keep backups of anything important. Don't keep anything important on a single device. NAS, WHS, or your own desktop...they all suffer from hard drive failures and other accidents.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
You can build a nearly-silent Windows Home Server on a low-power system. A prime example is the MSI Window barebones PC for $150, prebuilt with (Intel Atom) CPU, cooler, power brick, gigabit NIC, and case. It draws a measured 30 watts with hard drive installed. I just built one of these for a friend and it works great.

No matter WHAT storage solution you decide on, don't forget to keep backups of anything important. Don't keep anything important on a single device. NAS, WHS, or your own desktop...they all suffer from hard drive failures and other accidents.

Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of the folly of not backing up. I've worked as a database administrator. I'm not always backed up 100%, but close to it. Were I to have my main data drive crash this very moment, I'd lose a little data, but it would be far from catastrophic. No data of real importance.

That 30 watt server... is that designed to be on 24/7? Can it go to sleep, too?

Is the idea of using my laptop as the server untenable? It draws less than 30 watts when fired up. Asleep, 1.5 watts, IIRC. Couldn't it be wakened from suspend by a request for data from the network? In the house, I have the laptop on adapter, the battery in the refrigerator.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
If you just want to store files and Network Speed is Not of importance Option 1 or 2 are OK too.

Using a computer that can fall into deep sleep and wake up with Network traffic depeneds on the OS used (real servers usually do not go to sleep).

It can be done well with WinXP, and Vista, the current version of Windows Home server can reduce consumption by putting some functions on standby but it never goes into deep sleep as a whole.

However computers that are based on VIA C-7, or Intel ATOM, take only 30 to 40 Watts when idle.

Network speed is something I can't evaluate. I don't know what I'd be happy with. A lot of the time I'm not accessing data, like now for instance. Running my email program against a network data source might prove slow, I'd have to try. Likewise the database stuff, at least sometimes.

My systems won't run Vista except the laptop, but I have XP Pro installed on it currently. I can get a free upgrade to Vista for it, but haven't because I'm concerned about possible issues and don't have a sense of real potential benefits.

Is XP Pro better than Windows 2000 for a network data server? You don't mention Windows 2000. Being somewhat leaner, it might run easier on my second computer. That computer would probably need more RAM to run WHS. I think it's got 500 MB only, currently. I've had some experience setting up a LAN with Windows 2000. I imagine it would be similar with XP Pro, but maybe it's easier with XP Pro, based on the fact that you didn't mention Windows 2000.

 

[JackMDS]

I am not sure how elaborate are Win2000 sleep capacities. If it is good enough for your purpose, then Win2000 can be a good solution too.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
Four Options.

1 - Buy a readymade NAS.,WD, Seagate, etc., make them it is an Enclosure with Network Interface and a Hard Drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822136196

You plug it to the Router config and done.

Easy inexpensive solution but limited option

2. Buy a NAS enclosure and put in your own HD ( many of these enclosures can use more than one drive ).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822165075

More expensive and almost always slower than what the specs promise. In most cases can not do NTFS on its drives.

3. Use an old computer to build your own NAS. Open source, and any variants of Windows with the correct File sharing would work well.

My favorite is an Old computer with Window Home server, http://www.ezlan.net/WHS.html

Usually more expensive to build and maintain but far superior to the other solution.

Real Giga on Giga Networks, and can do much more than a dedicated NAS.

Option 4. Same as option 3 but in order to save on energy instead of buying an Old Guzzler build a computer base4d on Intel ATOM or VIA C-7. Both take less than 50Watts.

============
*Note 1 - Each one of the methods described above has its advantage and disadvantage, search for the term and educate yourself before you make a decision.

*Noter2 - The hardware linked above is an example and not a recommendation for the specific device.

What do you think about this one:

MSI Wind PC Atom 1.6 MHz CPU Intel 945GC 1 x 200Pin Intel GMA 950 Barebone

One of the reviewers said it uses less than 30 watts under load. I presume it would use much less idle. It's basically a low power laptop motherboard based system.

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
You can build a nearly-silent Windows Home Server on a low-power system. A prime example is the MSI Window barebones PC for $150, prebuilt with (Intel Atom) CPU, cooler, power brick, gigabit NIC, and case. It draws a measured 30 watts with hard drive installed. I just built one of these for a friend and it works great.

I think the link above is pretty much what you built for your friend, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: JackMDS
Four Options.

1 - Buy a readymade NAS.,WD, Seagate, etc., make them it is an Enclosure with Network Interface and a Hard Drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822136196

You plug it to the Router config and done.

Easy inexpensive solution but limited option

2. Buy a NAS enclosure and put in your own HD ( many of these enclosures can use more than one drive ).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822165075

More expensive and almost always slower than what the specs promise. In most cases can not do NTFS on its drives.

3. Use an old computer to build your own NAS. Open source, and any variants of Windows with the correct File sharing would work well.

My favorite is an Old computer with Window Home server, http://www.ezlan.net/WHS.html

Usually more expensive to build and maintain but far superior to the other solution.

Real Giga on Giga Networks, and can do much more than a dedicated NAS.

Option 4. Same as option 3 but in order to save on energy instead of buying an Old Guzzler build a computer base4d on Intel ATOM or VIA C-7. Both take less than 50Watts.

============
*Note 1 - Each one of the methods described above has its advantage and disadvantage, search for the term and educate yourself before you make a decision.

*Noter2 - The hardware linked above is an example and not a recommendation for the specific device.

What do you think about this one:

MSI Wind PC Atom 1.6 MHz CPU Intel 945GC 1 x 200Pin Intel GMA 950 Barebone

One of the reviewers said it uses less than 30 watts under load. I presume it would use much less idle. It's basically a low power laptop motherboard based system.

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
You can build a nearly-silent Windows Home Server on a low-power system. A prime example is the MSI Window barebones PC for $150, prebuilt with (Intel Atom) CPU, cooler, power brick, gigabit NIC, and case. It draws a measured 30 watts with hard drive installed. I just built one of these for a friend and it works great.

I think the link above is pretty much what you built for your friend, if I'm not mistaken.

Bump