If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
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. 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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
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 . |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
"Curious George" wrote in message news
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:03:53 +0100, "Folkert Rienstra" wrote: "Eric Gisin" wrote in message "Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message reenews.net... ...and you can't easily monitor drive temperatures, as SMART doesn't work on external drives... No? Why not? Did you hurt your brain today, Folknuts? You obviously did. It's a valid question. If he can't answer it, let see if you can. Whoa. Déjà Vu! - complete with Folkert & Arno: Aren't you forgetting the other one? http://tinyurl.com/delsh Only this time David isn't here for the answer. Who in his usual bright way started with disagreeing with Arnie but in his explanation then actually agreed with him. David Lethe is not exactly one of the s.m.a.r.t.est persons. And he did say "many" are too simple to support SMART, not that it is impossible, as in: " SMART doesn't work on external drives..." Personally, I think Arnie hit the nail on the head, with David just supporting what Arnie said. Eric is just plain wrong as there are other commands in ATA that also have no direct equivalents in SCSI either but are likely emulated in SCSI, s.a. Inquiry and Read Capacity. He is correct in that there is no 1:1 SMART equivalent. There is a Subclass code 06h called SCSI transparent command set that might be used to transport mode_sense/mode_select commands as used with SCSI SMART. But as David said the "dongle" has to do full SCSI emulation for that to work. (Btw, according to one site that set is used by most all bridges). Another way would be a proprietary driver on top of the USB driver that just passes through IDE commands to the bridge chip (similar as the SMART driver does with standard IDE) which the bridge then would have to understand to pass this through to the IDE device without conversion. This would be along Arnies lines of ideas. I think http://www.freescale.com/files/micro...ual/DRM062.pdf "Chapter 8 ATA/ATAPI Driver" may refer to such a proprietary driver. Curious's Déjà Vu: (quoted) David A.Lethe wrote: On 20 Aug 2005 23:33:45 GMT, Arno Wagner wrote: Previously Discordia wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:57:25 -0700, "Eric Gisin" wrote: Nope, it is almost impossible. USB uses SCSI commands, which don't have IDE SMART features. "Jeff Korn" wrote in message ... I have seen some tools which inform me about the SMART data/status of internal IDE hard discs. Unfortunately these tools do not offer the same for external USB harddiscs (connected through USB 2.0). Is this possible at all? I was about to ask this same question. So, if SMART won't work on an external drive, will the manufactures drive test programs do as good a job as SMART in determining the health of the drive? Today many of these just read the SMART status. That means they will likely not work on external drives unless the USB interface was made by the same manufactuere and they put in some vendor-specific extensions that allow SMART pass-through. Best option IMO: Remove the external drive from its case and connect it internally to read smart status. Arno No that is not the case. The reason that the USB hard disks don't "support SMART" is because many of the USB dongle chips have very poor protocol conversion & drivers that don't translate the full instruction set. From the software perspective, a USB device makes the disk speak "SCSI" instead of "ATA" instruction set, and their emulation is only good enough to satisfy using the disk as a storage device, not to support the type of diagnostic commands required to obtain and control SMART. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
Folkert Rienstra wrote:
And he did say "many" are too simple to support SMART, not that it is impossible, as in: " SMART doesn't work on external drives..." ...which states it doesn't /currently/ work, not that it never will. That's the situation for usb/firewire external drives /at present/. Can you read SMART info from an external drive *today*? No. Many of the external network drives use linux, so as someone said, it might be currently possible to query SMART directly on the unit for those. -- Mike |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
Folkert Rienstra wrote:
"Mike Redrobe" wrote in message . uk Folkert Rienstra wrote: And he did say "many" are too simple to support SMART, not that it is impossible, as in: " SMART doesn't work on external drives..." ..which states it doesn't /currently/ work, not that it never will. That's the situation for usb/firewire external drives /at present/. Then maybe that is what you should have said in the first place. I did use the present tense "doesn't", not the future "never will". Can you read SMART info from an external drive *today*? No. The fact that I can't prove that there is no bridge currently that supports it, that is not then proof that it is nonexistent. Now you really are clutching at straws. -- Mike |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?)
"Mike Redrobe" wrote in message . uk
Folkert Rienstra wrote: And he did say "many" are too simple to support SMART, not that it is impossible, as in: " SMART doesn't work on external drives..." ..which states it doesn't /currently/ work, not that it never will. That's the situation for usb/firewire external drives /at present/. Then maybe that is what you should have said in the first place. Can you read SMART info from an external drive *today*? No. There you go again. The fact that I can't prove that there is no bridge currently that supports it, that is not then proof that it is nonexistent. And as far as Firewire goes, I get the impression that the 1394 Tailgate is much like SATA so it shouldn't be so difficult to provide a S.M.A.R.T. driver for it. Many of the external network drives use linux, so as someone said, it might be currently possible to query SMART directly on the unit for those. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASUS KN8E-DLX and Linksys Network Storage Link | [email protected] | Asus Motherboards | 0 | February 2nd 05 12:12 AM |
Enterprise Storage Management (ESM) FAQ Revision 2004/02/16 - Part 1/1 | Will Spencer | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 16th 04 10:23 PM |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/02/16 - Part 1/1 | Will Spencer | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 16th 04 10:02 PM |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/02/12 - Part 1/1 | Voyager | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 12th 04 05:31 PM |
Terabyte Storage By Real-Storage | Real-Storage | Storage & Hardrives | 2 | October 23rd 03 04:18 PM |