Building a file server, which OS

[gntlkilr]

Ok, I'm building a file server with around 4-5 TB of HDD space. About 2 Gb of RAM, dual P3 1.0 Ghz CPUs. (got the board, one of the processors, and 128 Mb of RAM for 20$ at a Computer Renaissance in the States). Anyways, I have a mixture of XP and Vista on my network. I don't know Linux yet, I'm trying to learn, but I have the access to free legal copies of Server 03. So whats better? Server 03 or Linux? I'm not ttrying to start a battle here, just a simpel, I have a buttload of stuff I want to put on a central server, whats faster and better on an older machine.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

[SgtM]

So whats better?, I'm trying to Server 03 or Linux? I'm not ttrying to start a battle here, just a simpel, I have a buttload of stuff I want to put on a central server, whats faster and better on an older machine.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

While Server 2003 will run on that box, Linux will definitley be MUCH lighter. There are TONS of tuts available on building a linux file server.

Here are just a few:
http://www.aboutdebian.com/lan.htm
http://www.real-time.com/linuxsolutions/fileserver.html
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.co...le.php/3522596
http://librenix.com/?inode=1111

[XcOM]

While i agree with SGTM about linux running faster, Windows will be better for talking to with for a file server.

Yes Linux is better, faster, more powerful and more stable. But if your not fluent in Linux then i would say that windows 2003 is the better option, simply becuase it has a wizard to setup a file server, a few clicks and your well away with the faries.

My old server was a P3 1GHz running server 2000, till i got a copy of 2003.

N.B
If your running a dual CPU setup, makesure that you have the second VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) This controls the power to the second CPU, some motherboards have these built onboard for the second CPU, others require the module to be inserted. Check before you decide to use the second CPU or you might not be using all it has to give, or even worse, damage it.

[gntlkilr]

While i agree with SGTM about linux running faster, Windows will be better for talking to with for a file server.

Yes Linux is better, faster, more powerful and more stable. But if your not fluent in Linux then i would say that windows 2003 is the better option, simply becuase it has a wizard to setup a file server, a few clicks and your well away with the faries.

My old server was a P3 1GHz running server 2000, till i got a copy of 2003.

N.B
If your running a dual CPU setup, makesure that you have the second VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) This controls the power to the second CPU, some motherboards have these built onboard for the second CPU, others require the module to be inserted. Check before you decide to use the second CPU or you might not be using all it has to give, or even worse, damage it.

Yeah it does, its an "actual" server board that i took out of an old HP Proliant. That was one of the selling points for me was that it already had the VRM

[gntlkilr]

While Server 2003 will run on that box, Linux will definitley be MUCH lighter. There are TONS of tuts available on building a linux file server.

Here are just a few:
http://www.aboutdebian.com/lan.htm
http://www.real-time.com/linuxsolutions/fileserver.html
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.co...le.php/3522596
http://librenix.com/?inode=1111

I read through a couple of those tuts, not quite what I was looking for. Mostly what I'm looking for is not the faster operating system, but mostly which OS is gonna be faster over my network? I'm running 1000 Mb all through my network, and I'm sick of trying different tweaks through Server 03. Will Linux run better to share things out than Server 03? thats mostly what I'm looking for.

Also, because the server is a work in progress, I'm not starting a worklog, too far into the project now for that, but here's a quick sketchup of the case.

[Airbozo]

Linux will not be faster than windows that you will notice. The network code in the server 2003 is really good. Your bottleneck will be in the nic you use (and the number of them that you use).

I am a M$ basher (it's a personal thing), and I do recommend linux over windows almost all the time. In this instance there will not be a noticeable difference other than the fact you can pretty much slim down the linux kernel to run faster. This will not translate into the network pushing bits out faster though, but with multiple file system requests it MAY actually seem faster since the linux box would be doing less per cycle than the windows box. There are also some pretty good file systems under linux that are better for media files than NTFS. (You'll have to do a little research on that one)

http://fsbench.netnation.com/

As to the additional P3, you MUST make sure you match the speed step or the proc will either not work, or cause the system to slow down or hang. Most of the time it just refuses to post. (I just went to pick up a P3 1ghz and got all the way to the store before remembering I need the speed step.)

[gntlkilr]

Linux will not be faster than windows that you will notice. The network code in the server 2003 is really good. Your bottleneck will be in the nic you use (and the number of them that you use).

I am a M$ basher (it's a personal thing), and I do recommend linux over windows almost all the time. In this instance there will not be a noticeable difference other than the fact you can pretty much slim down the linux kernel to run faster. This will not translate into the network pushing bits out faster though, but with multiple file system requests it MAY actually seem faster since the linux box would be doing less per cycle than the windows box. There are also some pretty good file systems under linux that are better for media files than NTFS. (You'll have to do a little research on that one)

http://fsbench.netnation.com/

As to the additional P3, you MUST make sure you match the speed step or the proc will either not work, or cause the system to slow down or hang. Most of the time it just refuses to post. (I just went to pick up a P3 1ghz and got all the way to the store before remembering I need the speed step.)

Speed Step? I'm clueless there.

[Airbozo]

Speed Step? I'm clueless there.

Yes, most people are until they try to upgrade the PIII and are asked (hopefully) by the vendor for the speed step value. I was, and even yesterday I forgot I needed this info.

This utility from Intel will tell you all the information you need to know about your proc (this utility only works on P III and older procs and celerons);
http://support.intel.com/support/pro...s/frequencyid/

This one works on the newer procs;
http://support.intel.com/support/pro.../CS-014921.htm

[XcOM]

i disagree, i think server 2003 will be your best bet, Yes Linux runs faster, and yes there are better formats on linux for hard drives, but this then limits you to using a linux box if one of the drive fails, or if the box fails.

Server 2003 is easier to install period.

Linux is physically faster, and this will NOT translate into network speed. If your running 1GB eithernet make sure the firewall your using isn't limiting this, as my old system had Sygate on it with 1GB network, it limited it to 10/100, as soon as i put zone alarm on instead it worked at 1GB

If your going to be issuing multipul commands or requests for file then more than one NIC card will be needed as this increases the ammount of data that can be sent/recived at any time, Otherwise known as teaming

http://technet2.microsoft.com/window....mspx?mfr=true
A doc from microsoft ^

[gntlkilr]

ooooh, researching geek facts. Lovin it. Thanks Airbozo.

I'll keep that in mind cuz I actually use Sygate. Which might be why its so slow. Zone Alarm, eh? I always heard bad things about it. I'll try it out. Thanks XcOM.