CJT wrote
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.

No it isnt. In spades with using a flash device.

Why would you think that's foolish?

Waste of time with modern systems. The OS is only loaded
of the HD at boot time with a system which has enough physical
ram and so there is no point in having a separate drive for it.

No point whatever in a read only or flash drive.

It seems to me like the obvious thing to do,

Nope.

and for multiple reasons (e.g. it allows easier swapping of drives between
hardware,

Thats marginal, not worth the farting around for that IMO.

the use of different levels of RAID for the OS from that used on the user
data,

What is the point ? Makes a lot more sense to ensure that its got enough
physical ram so you dont need a different RAID for the OS instead.

cleaner backup strategies,

Wrong. You can do that fine with a separate
partition instead of a separate physical drive.

improved ability to judiciously use read-only mounts,

You can do that fine without a separate physical drive
and its basically a waste of time with a decent OS anyway.

better head movement statistics, etc.).

Wrong. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to
ensure that its got enough physical ram instead.

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

That smaller drive will normally have worse performance
than the larger drive, its not as easy to ensure that the
drives have adequate cooling in the smaller cases that
dont have enough 3.5" drive bay slots to allow a free
slot between drives, drives that are small enough for
even something like XP 2003 server are so old and
dinosaury that their performance is obscene, you limit
the number of big drives you can install without farting
around with addon controllers, etc etc etc.