Rod Speed wrote:
brady4747 wrote


So you just want to disagree with everything I just said, eh


Nope.


Main problem with the P2 is that it may not be very convenient
to have a decent amount of memory in that system, particularly
if you want to run the same OS you run on the PCs for simplicity.


Since the OP was contemplating just an enclosure, it seems
that running a gui on his network storage box is not a big priority
for him, thus as most any mobo supporting a P2 will likely to
be able to support at least 128M ram, he should be more
than fine with that amount of memory for running a file server


Pity that its obviously going to be a lot easier
if it can run the OS he is already familiar with.

.... which in the case of the OP allows for several choices.


There are several ready made linux installs that can whip it right
up for you, or get a debian netinst cd, use it, log in and type
'apt-get install openssh samba webmin' and you will be good to go


Not necessarily, particularly if you've never bothered
with other than the OS that runs on the PCs.


Again, in the context of the OP, he states having a mixed network at
home of Linux and WinXP. Seems he should be able to handle a little
web based configuration of samba with webmin, no? He has obviously
set up a network and wifi as well, so give the dude a little credit


It aint just about the OP and his capabilitys.


Oh, and put another smaller drive in besides your 300 gigger for the
OS so if you want to move it or switch os or something, no problem.


Makes more sense to use a small part of the main drive for that.


I guess this could be debated endlessly,


Nope.


so I will just say that it is my preference to
have OS on separate drive on my file servers,


More fool you.


even to the point of mounting some portions
read only or using flash devices for OS portion.


More fool you in spades.



Huh? I think it's pretty much accepted practice to put the OS on
a separate drive. Why would you think that's foolish? It seems
to me like the obvious thing to do, and for multiple reasons (e.g. it
allows easier swapping of drives between hardware, the use of different
levels of RAID for the OS from that used on the user data, cleaner
backup strategies, improved ability to judiciously use read-only mounts,
better head movement statistics, etc.).

Other than a small additional cost, I can't think of any reasons NOT to
do it that way.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .