File Server Specs

Hi All,

I have been working on setting up a file server for a small accounting
firm (4 users). As of today, I have slackware 9 running on an old p133
with 32megs ram with an 80 gig drive in it. It runs Samba and has a
home drive and a shared data drive for authorized users. The users have
a win something pc that connects to the samba drive and uses the data on
it. The program that they use is a database program (IDEA) that manages
big databases (I guess, about 10K entries).

THe server is perfect for storing and using word docs and the like, but
the database grinds to a halt when you do any major queries or whatever.
My question is: Do I need more ram, cpu, or can nothing really be
done? I don't want to have to get a new p4-6gig with 10 terabytes
memory, but we could upgrade to something a little more recent if it
will provide a noticeable difference.

What are your recommendations?

On a side note, what are the inexpensive ways available to backup data
these days? Is a DVD-burner the way to go, or maybe just slap in an
extra 80 gig and have two copies of everything?

Thanks for the help,

Mike

In article <nehcb.74470$(E-Mail Removed)>, test wrote:
> I have been working on setting up a file server for a small accounting
> firm (4 users). As of today, I have slackware 9 running on an old p133
> with 32megs ram with an 80 gig drive in it. It runs Samba and has a
> home drive and a shared data drive for authorized users. The users have

I'm a great believer in giving the old boys new jobs, but as a file
server? I don't think so. Perhaps if you threw in an ATA-133 controller.
You might also need more RAM for the many concurrent smbd processes (and
more filesystem caching will help too.)

We recently had the discussion on alt.os.linux.slackware, and it would
appear that a P133 would have adequate PCI bus bandwidth to handle
ATA-133. But if you're going to be throwing more money at it, might as
well get a new motherboard with a much faster FSB. New, fast RAM is
cheaper than old PC-66 EDO (if you can find it at all!)

If you HAVE these parts, try it. Otherwise consider making this one a
dedicated firewall, or a combination server of various other things (it
could handle mail, DHCP and DNS, among other tasks.) Use an old 1GB or
so drive for that, and throw the 80GB in the new fileserver.

> On a side note, what are the inexpensive ways available to backup data

IMO one of the most important things about backing up is the ability to
take a copy of your data offsite. If you've got the bandwidth for it,
and an offsite (maybe co-lo) machine, that's what I prefer. Portable
drives (like USB) can be good for this. Maybe 2: leave one connected at
night to do the backup, and take the other one home.

I haven't priced any of these things, just giving you my thoughts.
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

test wrote:

> On a side note, what are the inexpensive ways available to backup data
> these days? Is a DVD-burner the way to go, or maybe just slap in an
> extra 80 gig and have two copies of everything?

If you consider doing this, have a look at using rsync with hard links
to keep 'snapshots'. I'm using this and it's pretty cool:

http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots

X.

Quoth test <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> I have been working on setting up a file server for a small accounting
> firm (4 users). As of today, I have slackware 9 running on an old
> p133 with 32megs ram with an 80 gig drive in it. It runs Samba and
> has a home drive and a shared data drive for authorized users. The
> users have a win something pc that connects to the samba drive and
> uses the data on it. The program that they use is a database program
> (IDEA) that manages big databases (I guess, about 10K entries).
>
> THe server is perfect for storing and using word docs and the like,
> but the database grinds to a halt when you do any major queries or
> whatever. My question is: Do I need more ram, cpu, or can nothing
> really be done? I don't want to have to get a new p4-6gig with 10
> terabytes memory, but we could upgrade to something a little more
> recent if it will provide a noticeable difference.

For this, more memory will go a LONG way. The more data that is
cached, the faster that reads will be. If you could get up to 256MB,
that would probably improve performance a lot.

And if it is update-heavy, multiple SCSI drives is liable to be the
only meaningful answer.

Faster CPU would have little or no impact on system speed.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sap.html
/Utopia-Bold 40 selectfont/n{moveto}def/p{gsave true charpath clip 72
400 n 300 -4 1{dup 160 300 3 -1 roll 0 360 arc 300 div 1 1 sethsbcolor
fill}for grestore 0 -60 rmoveto}def 72 500 n(This signature has been)p
(brought to you by the)p(letter Q and the number 42.)p(Chris Browne)
p((E-Mail Removed))p showpage

At the bare minimum, get more RAM. RAM is so dirt cheap these days,
and I would be almost certain that it would improve performance on a
large database, since less data would have to be swapped. You should
be able to put together a fairly decent server (PII or PIII something,
maybe 256 MB or more RAM) for a very reasonable price.

Gabe

test <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<nehcb.74470$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Hi All,
>
> I have been working on setting up a file server for a small accounting
> firm (4 users). As of today, I have slackware 9 running on an old p133
> with 32megs ram with an 80 gig drive in it. It runs Samba and has a
> home drive and a shared data drive for authorized users. The users have
> a win something pc that connects to the samba drive and uses the data on
> it. The program that they use is a database program (IDEA) that manages
> big databases (I guess, about 10K entries).
>
> THe server is perfect for storing and using word docs and the like, but
> the database grinds to a halt when you do any major queries or whatever.
> My question is: Do I need more ram, cpu, or can nothing really be
> done? I don't want to have to get a new p4-6gig with 10 terabytes
> memory, but we could upgrade to something a little more recent if it
> will provide a noticeable difference.
>
> What are your recommendations?
>
> On a side note, what are the inexpensive ways available to backup data
> these days? Is a DVD-burner the way to go, or maybe just slap in an
> extra 80 gig and have two copies of everything?
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> Mike

ram , lots more , if that's still not performing an used PII 350 sells
for 30$ these days and use that board and chip with more ram.... and
even more ram :_)
get the idea ?

test wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have been working on setting up a file server for a small accounting
> firm (4 users). As of today, I have slackware 9 running on an old p133
> with 32megs ram with an 80 gig drive in it. It runs Samba and has a
> home drive and a shared data drive for authorized users. The users have
> a win something pc that connects to the samba drive and uses the data on
> it. The program that they use is a database program (IDEA) that manages
> big databases (I guess, about 10K entries).
>
> THe server is perfect for storing and using word docs and the like, but
> the database grinds to a halt when you do any major queries or whatever.
> My question is: Do I need more ram, cpu, or can nothing really be
> done? I don't want to have to get a new p4-6gig with 10 terabytes
> memory, but we could upgrade to something a little more recent if it
> will provide a noticeable difference.
>
> What are your recommendations?
>
> On a side note, what are the inexpensive ways available to backup data
> these days? Is a DVD-burner the way to go, or maybe just slap in an
> extra 80 gig and have two copies of everything?
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> Mike

--
Unix Rules... help your mates and introduce them.