Re: OT: Network / Server

From: SilverEightynine@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 20 2007 - 21:56:47 EDT


In article <fcetfi$ccr$1@bent.twistedbits.net>, jon@dakota-truck.net writes:
>
>
> "Jamie Calder" <jcalder3@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I realize there's a bunch of computer nuts here so this is where I'm
> > starting my research.
> >
> > Right now we have 4 computers wirelessly networked, 2 for my wife business,
> > my laptop and the kids computer.
> >
> > I would like get another one (or 2 depending how we go about this) and use
> > one with Media Center in our living room on our HDTV. I'd also want a
better
> > backup solution, perhaps a raid setup. What's a good setup for our use?
> >
> > Have one server with raid with all our files on it (personal and business)
> > networked with the Media Center computer, our office computers, and
personal
> > computers?
> >
> > Or can one of these computers be also used as the server (Media Center
> > computer with raid as the server)
> >
> > What is Windows Home Server? Is this a server that needs an operating
> > system installed on it, an operating system in itself or just a computer
> > that holds files (no OS)?
> >
> > Thanks for any advise!
> >
> > James
> >
> >
>
>
> As you have no doubt noticed, there are about as many ways to
> answer this question as there are people to answer it. :-) Ultimately
> it will come down to your own needs, capabilities, and budget. As far
> as using the same system for the media center and backups, it is
> certainly possible, but something to consider is that a system with a
> lot of drives is going to need some decent cooling too, and chances
> are it is not going to be quiet, which might be a problem if you are
> trying to enjoy a movie with the server buzzing away in the corner.
> A backup system requires much less horsepower than a multimedia
> system, which you can either look at as a good reason to separate the
> two and recycle an old PC for the backup duties, or you could argue
> that since the backup requirements are low, a system that can handle
> multimedia should be able to take on the backup tasks without breaking
> a sweat.
>
> As far as a backup server goes, the best location is off-site so
> that in a catastrophe, your data is not lost with everything else.
> This is not always an option however, especially for home users.
> (Although I believe there are services that allow you to upload large
> amounts of data, so something could no doubt be done along those
> lines.) Another problem with this in a residential setting is the
> slow upstream data rate of most bandwidth providers. (It can take a
> LONG time to get the data out of your house and to the off-site
> location if you have a bandwidth provider who is stingy with the
> upstream.)
>
> Some of the benefits of an "offsite" backup can sometimes be
> achieved without leaving your property. For example, if you have a
> detached garage or even a garden shed a sufficient distance away from
> the house, perhaps you could put the backup server out there. That
> way, if the house burns down, hopefully your data will survive. (You
> will want to be aware of environmental conditions though; if you are
> putting the server in a tin shed in Louisiana, don't expect it to last
> very long. :-) The basement can be a good place for a backup server
> because it is usually cool year round, and any noise from the cooling
> fans and such will be muffled. If you have some sort of root cellar
> or bomb shelter, or are willing to do some construction, it may be
> possible to create an alcove for the server which would protect it in
> the event of a fire. (Don't forget that it must not only be protected
> from heat and be able to support the weight of the house falling on
> it, but it must also be waterproof for when the fire department
> arrives.) If you live in an area where flooding may be a problem,
> then perhaps the basement isn't such a good idea, and the second story
> starts looking like a viable alternative. (The attic will probably be
> too hot in the summer.) Even if you can't do an off-site backup of
> some type, any backup solution at all is still better than nothing,
> and as you can see, there are steps you can take to mitigate the
> problems that arise with on-site backup.
>
> Because you don't have a lot of systems to back up, wireless would
> be fine; wireless G adapters at 54Mbps are fairly ubiquitous these
> days.
>
> Since we all seem to be sharing, :-) this is what I currently have
> setup for backups at home: I have about 12 computers in various roles
> from servers to desktop machines which have backups performed on them
> on a regular basis, and 3-4 more which are used less frequently or are
> not always connected to the network so backups on them are done on
> more of a "when I feel like it" basis. What I did was to buy a server
> with a roomy case on ebay. It was a model I had experience with at a
> previous sys-admin job so I was reasonably confident it would work for
> me. I only paid about $100 for it, which got me a nice big case (6
> hard drive drawers built in, with plenty of room for me to fabricate
> more inside the case), and dual redundnant 500W power supplies. Its
> got something like 1GB of RAM I think and the processor is just a
> Pentium Pro I believe. Definitely not cutting edge stuff, but its
> still more than capable of performing as a backup server. (It would
> probably have been considered a top of the line server about 8-10
> years ago, but just because its old doesn't mean it doesn't have
> something of value left to contribute.) I installed Linux (Slackware)
> and a couple of SATA cards, and I got a good deal on some
> reconditioned SATA hard drives from Seagate or Western Digital (I
> don't recall which). Anyway, I got 6 drives at 250GB each, and using
> Linux's software RAID capabilities, I configured them as a RAID0 array
> (striping) to give me a volume of 1.5 TB in size. (Took 3 days to
> format it with bad block checking.) :-) I'm using automount so that
> the backup partition isn't actually mounted except for when data needs
> to be read or written, to prevent corruption problems (and a long fsck
> in the event of a power failure.) I wrote a script based backup
> system which uses Samba to backup the windows machines via windows
> shares. The linux machines back themselves up and then the backup
> server pulls those backups down via rsync. The backups are triggered
> via cron; some machines get weekly full backups with daily
> incrementals, others have a monthly full with daily incrementals; it
> just depends on what it is used for, how it is used, the amount of
> data, etc.
>
> I went with a striping setup instead of one of the redundant
> versions of RAID mostly because I am cheap and didn't want to "lose"
> the storage capacity of one of the drives I purchased, and also
> because I figured the odds of a RAID problem at the same time as a
> loss of data on one of the backed up machines was minimal. (If the
> backup server goes down, I can rebuild it and pull down all the
> backups again, because that data is still on the client machines
> themselves.) Plus the really critical stuff gets sent off-site so no
> matter what happens to this server, at least that stuff is still safe.
>
> Most of the backed-up data just sits on the backup server, but some
> of it I send off site. I have a similar backup server set up at my
> brother's house, its much smaller though, just an old P5 desktop with
> a 1-2GB hard drive for the OS (Slackware Linux again), and a 30-40GB
> drive for backups, and its purpose is to backup the two windows boxes
> at his house, (I suck those backups down to the large backup server at
> my place via rsync). I also upload some of the more critical backups
> to that server. All of the above is automated via cron.
>
> Unfortunately, it took a hard drive crash and a painful loss of
> data for me to learn my lesson and implement this backup system for my
> home LAN, so I commend you on your preemptive strike. :-) I was able
> to do it on the cheap because I didn't use any commercial solutions, I
> purchased the hardware inexpensively, and wrote the software necessary
> to tie it all together. There are no doubt standalone or commercial
> systems which you could purchase that would be a lot more plug and
> play. The main thing my system is still lacking is a UPS. I'd really
> like to get some protection against power failures in there somewhere,
> even if the UPS system did nothing more than keep the systems on life
> support and shut them down gracefully. Jason gave me some leads in
> this area, but I just haven't had enough time to look into it. Living
> in a rural area as I do, we get a few power outages every year, so I
> really should address that.
>
> Anyhoo, sorry for all the words, if you're read this far. Maybe
> there are some ideas you can use in there. :-)
>
> --
> -Jon-
>
> .- Jon Steiger -- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
> | '96 Kolb Firefly, '96 Suzuki Intruder, Miscellaneous Mopars |
> `-------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'

(down on hands and knees bowing repeatedly)

 I'M NOT WORTHY!
 I'M NOT WORTHY!
 I'M NOT WORTHY!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 02 2007 - 15:23:18 EDT