Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Building a home server?
Building a home server?
2007-05-31, 10:28 AM #1
Just discovered this sweet little box that looks perfect for a small home server.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16856110056

It's a $75 barebones PC with a VIA C3 800mhz. All you need to add is RAM and drives.
2007-05-31, 10:35 AM #2
I prefer free stuff. :D
2007-05-31, 10:37 AM #3
Looks pretty nice for the size and price. What are you going to use it for? File server?
Naked Feet are Happy Feet
:omgkroko:
2007-05-31, 10:42 AM #4
Yup, I've been shopping around for a while now, trying to decide what the best way to go is. I considered a Linksys NSLU2, or Netgear SC101, but considering this is a full fledged system and a lot more flexible (and cheaper than both of the above as well), I think it's the way to go.

In addition to a file server, it'll probably also serve as a static web server and possibly share a printer.
2007-05-31, 10:58 AM #5
Not too shabby, although you could probably salvage a complete computer with similar specs someplace for less.


What OS are you planning to use?
2007-05-31, 11:08 AM #6
LINUX LOL
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2007-05-31, 11:09 AM #7
Not sure, haven't decided if I want to use a distro like FreeNAS/NASLite, or just do everything custom.
2007-05-31, 11:19 AM #8
That looks very neat indeed, personally if it was a home server I would put something like Windows XP or Vista on it and just use the file sharing option... but if you're going to use it for an Internet server, Apache with MYSQL is an awesome choice... make another thread when you have it up I'm really interested to know what you choose to do with it.
2007-05-31, 11:30 AM #9
That thing won't run XP well, and it won't run Vista at all.

And you don't need windows for file sharing.

I'd go the Linux route and set up something just for you, rather than a package. More fun that way :p
2007-05-31, 11:32 AM #10
I warn you against running Linux on a VIA board, I've tried it a couple of different times and could never get a stable box.
Yet Another Massassi Map | Sadly I Have a Blog Too
2007-05-31, 11:35 AM #11
Originally posted by Aglar:
Not sure, haven't decided if I want to use a distro like FreeNAS/NASLite, or just do everything custom.


I'll have to check those out.
2007-05-31, 11:36 AM #12
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
And you don't need windows for file sharing.


Oh I know, Windows isn't required for file sharing, I just find it's more stable than most Linux distros... of course that's my experience... what's yours like? :awesome:
2007-05-31, 11:39 AM #13
Windows only started being remotely stable when MS got rid of the 9x/ME kernel and started using the NT kernel for everything.
2007-05-31, 11:39 AM #14
@ Toxic
It's more of a hassle to set up, but I've never had problems using a samba server with Linux.
Naked Feet are Happy Feet
:omgkroko:
2007-05-31, 12:44 PM #15
Originally posted by Pagewizard_YKS:
Windows only started being remotely stable when MS got rid of the 9x/ME kernel and started using the NT kernel for everything.

So right around the time the Linux kernel stopped sucki- oh wait. It still does.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-05-31, 12:45 PM #16
I still wouldn't use windows for a web server.


(What is scary is that they still use Windows 95 for industrial applications. Most of the newest CNC machines I've seen use windows 95)
2007-05-31, 12:50 PM #17
IIS 6 is a fantastic web server. I haven't used 7 but I hear it's something else.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-05-31, 12:54 PM #18
Originally posted by Emon:
So right around the time the Linux kernel stopped sucki- oh wait. It still does.


What makes you say that?
2007-05-31, 12:56 PM #19
Originally posted by Emon:
IIS 6 is a fantastic web server. I haven't used 7 but I hear it's something else.


Hmmm, I'll have to look into that some day when I'm not totally lazy and inept at this stuff.
2007-05-31, 1:01 PM #20
No, lighttpd is amazing. I would have my webserver running off of that in a heartbeat if cpanel was compatible with it. It's perfect for small servers like this also.

As for crappy linux kernels, my webserver hit 365 days without a reboot today :p
2007-05-31, 3:37 PM #21
I second lighttpd.
2007-05-31, 4:23 PM #22
Linux is good for servers....and this is what I hear all the time.

Besides it being free, why does Linux make a good OS for a server?
Back again
2007-05-31, 5:55 PM #23
Originally posted by Pagewizard_YKS:
What makes you say that?

1. It's an ancient monolithic design and
2. Just to annoying Linux zealots like you.

Originally posted by Warlockmish:
Besides it being free, why does Linux make a good OS for a server?

It used to be faster and more stable than Windows. Now, not really.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-05-31, 6:25 PM #24
Hey! my win 98 box only crashes...
Every ten minutes. Jesus sweet merciful chirst i cant wait till i can get that new compy down here.
[Obligitory my comp sucks post]
2007-05-31, 7:33 PM #25
It's Christ, not christ.
If you are going to use that name correctly, use proper grammar.
Back again
2007-05-31, 8:24 PM #26
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Hey! my win 98 box only crashes...
Every ten minutes. Jesus sweet merciful chirst i cant wait till i can get that new compy down here.
[Obligitory my comp sucks post]


i still hate you
gbk is 50 probably

MB IS FAT
2007-05-31, 9:27 PM #27
All I need is just a box fast enough to run SQL Server 2005 and Win 2K3/2K5 for all my ASP.NET 2.0 needs.

Edit:
Originally posted by Pagewizard_YKS:
What makes you say that?

Linux is far behind the times. Granted some of that has been restricted because people have had to reverse engineer certain materials. But for instance, the .NET framework. The OSS community should have seen the rise in .NET popularity and develop something like that on their own to compete against MS. It was perfectly feasable to do so. Instead, nothing to compete against .NET and applications are still in Linux are still written in C and C++ and nowhere near that cross-platform dream Linux people aspire. Mono is definitely making strides and I hope this project succeeds well. But it's still 2-3 years behind.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2007-05-31, 9:43 PM #28
I like how Mono is the best framework for building applications in Linux. :v:
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-05-31, 9:49 PM #29
Haha, JG has mono.
2007-05-31, 10:18 PM #30
Originally posted by Emon:
1. It's an ancient monolithic design


What's your point? Linux still does what I need it to do, and very reliably. After getting comfortable with the power and versatility of Linux, it was incredibly easy for me to turn my back on Windows. (which seemed like a limited, oversimplified toy to me at that point)


Quote:
Linux is far behind the times. Granted some of that has been restricted because people have had to reverse engineer certain materials. But for instance, the .NET framework. The OSS community should have seen the rise in .NET popularity and develop something like that on their own to compete against MS. It was perfectly feasable to do so. Instead, nothing to compete against .NET and applications are still in Linux are still written in C and C++ and nowhere near that cross-platform dream Linux people aspire. Mono is definitely making strides and I hope this project succeeds well. But it's still 2-3 years behind.


Part of the reason that Linux is behind is because of stupid software patents and the FUD that goes with them. For example, the MSFT/Novell deal made Novell immune to being sued by MSFT. MSFT has patented (or has shown intent to patent) many parts of the .net framework, which mono imitates. Because of the deal, Novell can include mono in Suse with impunity, but this can still be a problem for the rest of the FOSS community. Plus, over reliance on mono can potentially be dangerous, according to Stallman.
2007-05-31, 10:35 PM #31
oh lord, not Stallman.
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2007-05-31, 10:41 PM #32
Originally posted by Pagewizard_YKS:
Plus, over reliance on mono can potentially be dangerous, according to Stallman.

If there's one thing everyone should be able to agree on, it's that Stallman is a god damned moron.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-05-31, 10:44 PM #33
Quote:
...but this can still be a problem for the rest of the FOSS community. Plus, over reliance on mono can potentially be dangerous, according to Stallman.

You're kidding right?

Spend a day learning C#. If you don't jizz yourself over delegates, events, marshalling, reflection, and properties, then....I dunno, I'm going to drink more wine I suppose.

But seriously...
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2007-06-01, 6:07 AM #34
Originally posted by JediGandalf:
You're kidding right?

Spend a day learning C#. If you don't jizz yourself over delegates, events, marshalling, reflection, and properties, then....I dunno, I'm going to drink more wine I suppose.

But seriously...


I spent a day with it, and I didn't 'splode. Of course, I barely finished the tutorial, so...

:psyduck:
2007-06-01, 7:45 AM #35
Originally posted by JediGandalf:
Instead, nothing to compete against .NET and applications are still in Linux are still written in C and C++ and nowhere near that cross-platform dream Linux people aspire. Mono is definitely making strides and I hope this project succeeds well. But it's still 2-3 years behind.

If you use a cross-platform toolkit like Qt4 or wxWidgets in conjunction with automated build system such as cmake, it should be easy to port C/C++ between Windows and Linux. I have a C++ project, using Qt4 and cmake, that compiles on Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD without any code modifications. However, I suppose that .NET is a lot easier though, so I can't blame anyone for wanting it over C/C++.

That VIA C3 is painfully slow and is probably equipped with relatively antiquated hardware. I would personally go with a newer mini-itx board (like this one http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=2#p1645), due to their much lower power consumption, higher speeds, and improved feature set.
[This message has been edited. Deal with it.]
2007-06-01, 7:47 AM #36
I tried C# and didn't really like it.

Although, I wanted to make a background process and create a window using the windows API... It didn't work. I probably picked the wrong language. I ended up doing it in C++.

C# feels kind of constricting to me. It's object model is quite nice but sometimes having a pure OO system makes things a lot more complicated than they really need to be. What's wrong with global vars? Nothing really... except you can't have them in C# so you end up continually passing objects around. It's main feature is apparently a strong object model.. but it doesn't even support multiple inheritance so that point is pretty moot.

I learnt OOP in Eiffel which as a language is rather useless but its object model is fantastic.
TheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWho
SaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTh
eJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSa
ysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJ
kWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSays
NiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkWhoSaysNiTheJkW

↑ Up to the top!