FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-22-2008, 06:04 PM
Les
 
Default changing home network

Hi, everyone,
I currently have four systems on my home network. I have them all
configured as standalone systems, but the burden of backing them up etc.
etc. is becoming too much. I want to set up a full network with server
and common user directories. Currently I have 2 Linux only systems, one
windows only system, and one dual boot.

I have been monitoring (and sometimes helping, occasionally kibbutzing)
the mailing list, so I believe I can figure out most of it by now.
However, here is my question.

I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all
the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu
system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows.
This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure
and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full
change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work
on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to
clean up my big goofs).

I am leery of using the older system simply because I suspect it is
approaching mechanical, support, and electrical end of life (over 6
years old). Buying a new system is possible, but adding yet another
300watts to my system load would be tough.

I think I would need to add wiring to the house. So, the question
becomes do I trust the older system, make my system the server, adopt
the remaining system (currently running f8) as a server, or should I
just throw down the cash and get yet one more system for a server. Also
I am thinking that having a common server would make backuppc simpler
and support, backup issues and so forth would be much simpler. Could I
continue to have the mail setup as it is with each system downloading
email from my ISP? Setting up a mail server is not something I want to
do for our home stuff.

` I suspect that on this mailing list there is someone who has been
faced with a similar situation, so please if that person reads this,
give me your experienced opinion.

Regards,
Les H

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 03-22-2008, 06:49 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default changing home network

Les wrote:


I currently have four systems on my home network. I have them all
configured as standalone systems, but the burden of backing them up etc.
etc. is becoming too much. I want to set up a full network with server
and common user directories. Currently I have 2 Linux only systems, one
windows only system, and one dual boot.


I have been monitoring (and sometimes helping, occasionally kibbutzing)
the mailing list, so I believe I can figure out most of it by now.
However, here is my question.

I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all
the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu
system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows.
This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure
and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full
change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work
on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to
clean up my big goofs).


I am leery of using the older system simply because I suspect it is
approaching mechanical, support, and electrical end of life (over 6
years old). Buying a new system is possible, but adding yet another
300watts to my system load would be tough.


I think I would need to add wiring to the house. So, the question
becomes do I trust the older system, make my system the server, adopt
the remaining system (currently running f8) as a server, or should I
just throw down the cash and get yet one more system for a server. Also
I am thinking that having a common server would make backuppc simpler
and support, backup issues and so forth would be much simpler. Could I
continue to have the mail setup as it is with each system downloading
email from my ISP? Setting up a mail server is not something I want to
do for our home stuff.


I'd add an SATA controller and a couple of new drives to the older
low-end system, install Centos 5.x so you won't have to do anything but
'yum update' on it for years, share out one of the drives with NFS and
samba, and install backuppc on the other. If/when the box dies (some of
those old BX chipset motherboards seem to run forever) you can easily
swap the disks into its replacement. Or, if you want to save a box, put
the drives (and Centos) on your dual-CPU system and run both fedora and
XP under VMware when you want them. File serving doesn't take a lot of
resources and you can schedule the backups to run when you won't be
using the machine. If you think you might want to mirror these drives
later, you can create a RAID1 with one of the devices specified as
'missing'. The md device will work fine that way and at any later time
you can add another disk and use mdadm --add to start mirroring. It's
not much extra work to set that up initially but fairly difficult if you
change your mind and want to mirror a normal partition.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 03-22-2008, 07:01 PM
tom
 
Default changing home network

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Les wrote:


Hi, everyone,
I currently have four systems on my home network. I have them all
configured as standalone systems, but the burden of backing them up etc.
etc. is becoming too much. I want to set up a full network with server
and common user directories. Currently I have 2 Linux only systems, one
windows only system, and one dual boot.

I have been monitoring (and sometimes helping, occasionally kibbutzing)
the mailing list, so I believe I can figure out most of it by now.
However, here is my question.

I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all
the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu
system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows.
This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure
and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full
change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work
on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to
clean up my big goofs).

I am leery of using the older system simply because I suspect it is
approaching mechanical, support, and electrical end of life (over 6
years old). Buying a new system is possible, but adding yet another
300watts to my system load would be tough.

I think I would need to add wiring to the house. So, the question
becomes do I trust the older system, make my system the server, adopt
the remaining system (currently running f8) as a server, or should I
just throw down the cash and get yet one more system for a server. Also
I am thinking that having a common server would make backuppc simpler
and support, backup issues and so forth would be much simpler. Could I
continue to have the mail setup as it is with each system downloading
email from my ISP? Setting up a mail server is not something I want to
do for our home stuff.

` I suspect that on this mailing list there is someone who has been
faced with a similar situation, so please if that person reads this,
give me your experienced opinion.


Well, I got opinion. Experience may be questionable, but I got opinion.
8-)


As I read it, you just want a file server/disk server with none of the
trimmings. For a server which just supports backup, durn near anything
should work just fine, as long as you stuff enough disk capacity in and
keep a nice UPS online. Should you prefer to keep the user files live on
the new server, you would have slightly more complexity but your files
follow you around.


Guessing a bit in the dark, I'm tempted to suggest take your lightest cpu
machine for the server. Put a big disk in, and run both NFS and Samba so
it doesn't much matter whether or not you are working under Linux or
Windows.


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 03-22-2008, 07:12 PM
Aaron Konstam
 
Default changing home network

On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 16:01 -0400, tom wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Les wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone,
> > I currently have four systems on my home network. I have them all
> > configured as standalone systems, but the burden of backing them up etc.
> > etc. is becoming too much. I want to set up a full network with server
> > and common user directories. Currently I have 2 Linux only systems, one
> > windows only system, and one dual boot.
> >
> > I have been monitoring (and sometimes helping, occasionally kibbutzing)
> > the mailing list, so I believe I can figure out most of it by now.
> > However, here is my question.
> >
> > I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all
> > the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu
> > system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows.
> > This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure
> > and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full
> > change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work
> > on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to
> > clean up my big goofs).
> >
> > I am leery of using the older system simply because I suspect it is
> > approaching mechanical, support, and electrical end of life (over 6
> > years old). Buying a new system is possible, but adding yet another
> > 300watts to my system load would be tough.
> >
> > I think I would need to add wiring to the house. So, the question
> > becomes do I trust the older system, make my system the server, adopt
> > the remaining system (currently running f8) as a server, or should I
> > just throw down the cash and get yet one more system for a server. Also
> > I am thinking that having a common server would make backuppc simpler
> > and support, backup issues and so forth would be much simpler. Could I
> > continue to have the mail setup as it is with each system downloading
> > email from my ISP? Setting up a mail server is not something I want to
> > do for our home stuff.
> >
> > ` I suspect that on this mailing list there is someone who has been
> > faced with a similar situation, so please if that person reads this,
> > give me your experienced opinion.
>
> Well, I got opinion. Experience may be questionable, but I got opinion.
> 8-)
>
> As I read it, you just want a file server/disk server with none of the
> trimmings. For a server which just supports backup, durn near anything
> should work just fine, as long as you stuff enough disk capacity in and
> keep a nice UPS online. Should you prefer to keep the user files live on
> the new server, you would have slightly more complexity but your files
> follow you around.
>
> Guessing a bit in the dark, I'm tempted to suggest take your lightest cpu
> machine for the server. Put a big disk in, and run both NFS and Samba so
> it doesn't much matter whether or not you are working under Linux or
> Windows.
>
I would mostly agree with the above. If I understand you have a newer f8
only machine I owukd use that one.Adding disk space might help things .
--
================================================== =====================
Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a wise guy.
================================================== =====================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 03-22-2008, 07:59 PM
Chris G
 
Default changing home network

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:04:55PM -0700, Les wrote:
> I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all
> the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu
> system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows.
> This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure
> and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full
> change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work
> on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to
> clean up my big goofs).
>
Consider running vmware (or similar) on the 'good' system and run it
all the time as a Linux server.


--
Chris Green

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:37 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org