5punk

I'm about to start having a go at making a server for when I'm at home, and I'm curious as to what's important to a server, spec wise?

All I really want to use it for is file hosting, so I'd imagine you'd only really need a decent amount of RAM and spare disk space.

Disk access speed, disk space and network speed are the most important I think, RAM not so much.

Depends on stuff.

For example, a gigabit network will cripple slower servers that are fine with 100mbit, not to mention OS choice and suchlike

Mainly:

cpu > 1ghz (faster is better)
ram > 512mb (again, more is better)
HDD - one for OS, one or more raided for storage.


Personally i sware by dell cheapy deals to keep me in servers

How about an OS? I'm looking at knoppix, but what do you guys use?

EDIT: As I'm just gona be building it from working gear I have lying around the house, here's what I'm looking at using to start with:

800MHZ AMD Duron (thunder-something core)
Biostar M7VKH Motherboard
704MB SD133 RAM
300W PSU
2X DVD-ROM

The motherboard has onboard graphics, so I don't seem much point in dumping a graphics card in there. Also, the board has 5 1.0 PCI slots that I'm intending to fill with a mixture of LAN and IDE PCI card.

windows 2k3 server (legit)

i like 2k too, but 2k3 wins for better networking stuff in my book

Personally I'd say go for a Linux OS, any of the main ones would do as long as it has Samba for setting up your windows shares. Linux makes better use of lower spec hardware than Windows based OSs do, although Berk may have a differing opinion on that

I'd recommend trying Linux and if you're not comfortable with it use Windows.

I ran a Fedora Core 4 server here for a while to give myself the ability to do stuff online through a SSH tunnel and proxy server without letting the IT department at work see what I was up to. It was primarily used as a home http server to give a few people quick access to some stuff I was sharing around, but didn't want to post online away from my own computers.

I ran lighttpd, pureftpd, sshd and afpd on it and it stayed on all the time.

It's a Sony Vaio laptop from a few years back and it has a 2GHz P4, 512MB RAM and a 40GB HD. It ran beautifully and I kept it well maintained, but it runs MacOS now.

Hehulk wrote:800MHZ AMD Duron (thunder-something core)
Biostar M7VKH Motherboard
704MB SD133 RAM
300W PSU
2X DVD-ROM

The motherboard has onboard graphics, so I don't seem much point in dumping a graphics card in there. Also, the board has 5 1.0 PCI slots that I'm intending to fill with a mixture of LAN and IDE PCI card.

That seems fine, however i'd replace the PSU (just for safety) also, i'd consider trying to find a faster cpu, even earlyish socket a durons went up to 1300. as far as extra HDDs go, you'll do well to pick up older 7200rpm HDDs, 120 gig ones shouldn't cost too many beer tokens now

Don't be surprised if it handles like a dog on bigger transfers, also, just use 10/100 to it, any more will make it cry.

Knopix will run on pretty much everything you throw at it.


Your spec will be great for it as it's not very resource hungry (unless you are running all the gui tools).

800MHZ AMD Duron (thunder-something core)
Biostar M7VKH Motherboard
704MB SD133 RAM
300W PSU
2X DVD-ROM

Disk wise, I recently picked up a promise SATA PCI Raid controller for about £20 which came with Linux drivers - lob a couple of cheap SATA disks on there and you are away.

With regards network card, I don't see the need to go to 1000mbit as - no SATA or IDE drive can write at that speed (a 100mbit nic will flood a sata disk).

Can you actually configure a Windows OS to run a server (the none server version). I've got win 98 se and XP home legit...

Hehulk wrote:Can you actually configure a Windows OS to run a server (the none server version). I've got win 98 se and XP home legit...

Nope. however, KRJQ8

Also, as far as Linux/Windows goes, i prefer windows for ease of use and fixability.

Right, so I've been poking about, figguring out what parts I want, listening to advice, and having done that I'm looking at buying this.

Am I just missing something really crucial, or is that a piece of windows sofware at a stupidly cheap price?

that's a Client Access Licence.

That just allows you to add one more client to your legit windows 2k3 install.

useless to you :D

Drat, ah well. Back to the search...

umm, whats wrong with using a "backup" copy of 2k3 server?

ProfHawking wrote:umm, whats wrong with using a "backup" copy of 2k3 server?

mainly because that machine wouldn't handle it.

he has, however, been sorted with 2k pro

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:

ProfHawking wrote:umm, whats wrong with using a "backup" copy of 2k3 server?

mainly because that machine wouldn't handle it.

he has, however, been sorted with 2k pro

This . However, Berk is a most helpful berk, if you ask nicely...

Hehulk wrote:

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:

ProfHawking wrote:umm, whats wrong with using a "backup" copy of 2k3 server?

mainly because that machine wouldn't handle it.

he has, however, been sorted with 2k pro

This . However, Berk is a most helpful berk, if you ask nicely...

I'm sure it would, our old 'under the stairs' server in our house was just a 1 gig cellery with 512 mb RAM, packed with HD's on an adaptec 1200, a 300 watt power supply, just a crummy old work station... It had 2k3, Exchange 2k3, IIS, ISA, Media Server, MSSQL etc..

Ran it all for about 3 years reasonably happily...

Yup, Windows 2000 Server runs on pretty much anything, same goes for Windows 2000 as well.

I've loaded 2000 on everything from brand new workstations/servers, to shitty old Dell Optiplex PC's from as far back as 1995 and all have worked okay and ran absolutely fine.

Brilliant little operating system really, far better than NT, but not as intrusive as XP can be sometimes.