What's the point of a file server?

[fuzzybabybunny]

I've got 7x160GB IDE hard drives that I'm thinking about putting into a file server.

Should I just get a couple of 400GB SATA hard drives instead and mount them internally and sell the IDE drives? The file server would only be serving one computer...

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Do you have any need for redundancy? If so, 7x160's in RAID 5 would be nice. It offers redundancy that 2x400's can't offer. Etc. etc. It basically depends upon your storage needs, and personal preference.

 

[Mr Fox]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I've got 7x160GB IDE hard drives that I'm thinking about putting into a file server.

Should I just get a couple of 400GB SATA hard drives instead and mount them internally and sell the IDE drives? The file server would only be serving one computer...

It depends upon the hardware that you already have, or how much you want to invest in the project.

If you can russle up an older IDE Raid Board, it would make better sense to put the older equiptment into this project. and then just throw in a PCI IDE controller or two if you need to. Be sure that when you set-up windows that you prioritize background processes, and you are all set..

 

[Genx87]

If you dont have a need to share the files and have room in your case, there isnt much of a point to a file server.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I've got 7x160GB IDE hard drives that I'm thinking about putting into a file server.

Should I just get a couple of 400GB SATA hard drives instead and mount them internally and sell the IDE drives? The file server would only be serving one computer...

For your purposes there is no point I would say.

For a big company there is.

 

[j00fek]

depends on what you want to do with the file server. i just put on together with all my old ide drives on a raid card. it hosts all my media and i do eveything on their thats not game related so my main rig is good for gaming all day.

 

[d3n]

Well, you have 7 , 160GB drives and it would be worth looking into deploying these as a RAID array.

Like j00fek said The advantage is with the file server here since you most likely will not be able to afford an offload cablable RAID controller so it would be best to have the array on a seperate CPU and a stable OS install.

From there you could server FTP, automated or simplified backup and you would not risk your data by tinkering with your primary machine.

 

[jackschmittusa]

File servers are for networks. If the common storage drives are in a user's machine, that machine must be turned on for anyone to access them, and that user's rig may slow down considerably for his tasks when others are accessing the files. A file server is on all of the time, and noone is trying to do regular work on it while it is sending or receiving files. In a corporate senario, a file server is easier to maintain and secure than a user's computer as well.

 

[Madwand1]

Do both or something like that.

Local array = best performance, not so great in stability (goes down with your system, changes as frequently as your system, is heavily accessed and therefore more prone user error, etc.)

Remote array = limited by GbE networking performance, much better in stability (isolatable, can be set up in stable "server" form, etc.)

Local + remote array = best of both -- high performance locally, and remote storage for backup.