changing home network

[tom]

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.