overkill file server

by **Ldsmith104** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:59 pm

Use NT4 less resources, better yet use Linux

by **LordShard** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:59 pm

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
Eh? Reading it wrong? I thought we read it right. Some of us are saying you could use more RAM. 2 x 512 = 1024= 1GB. Some of us were saying you could use 2GB or more, while a certain other party said you didn't even need 512MB. I personally wouldn't take said other party's advice as 2003 itself is a resource hog and will run like crap on 512MB.

I ran a file server in win98 with 128 MB of ram.
I also ran one win Red Hat 9 with 256. You do not need 512.

by **Evan** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:10 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
I ran a file server in win98 with 128 MB of ram.
I also ran one win Red Hat 9 with 256. You do not need 512.

Must not have been a popular/very used fileserver then..

by **munky73770** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:25 pm

Yea, I'm gonna make it an FTP I guess, and just share it out to a few friends. I have about 400 GB of music right now , and 250 of movies.

by **Chacal** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:49 pm

Oh, then it's a FTP server, not a file server. Not the same thing at all. I was wondering what Lordshard was talking about.

A file server provides file services to LAN clients using native protocols at LAN speeds (100 Mbps or 1 Gbps). You wouldn't go anywhere with 512M.

An FTP server doesn't have to be optimized, because of the network bottleneck.

overkill file server

Who is online