"+Bob+" <uctraing@xxxxxx> wrote in message
Quote:
>
> Yes, it's possible, but you are needlessly complicating things if you
> simply want to do backup...
>
> I see a few issues for you. If you go the PC backup route, you do need
> something a little faster. Not a lot faster if it's just for backup,
> but nothing past win98 will run comfortably on that 486. OTOH, you can
> run win2003 server comfortably (or maybe MS home server) on a P400 1gb
> machine if ALL it does is file & print sharing (and backup) for your
> tiny network. You could run a desktop OS if your backup scheme is
> simple file sharing...
Yes, unfortunately I'm going to have to get a more modern (Pentium) box, but
as Jack said, they are very cheap. And since all this machine will be doing
is backups, perhaps Windows XP will be sufficient.
From your post (& Jack & Al's), it seems that the backing up is done from
the 'sever' machine, not from the laptops. Forgive my ignorance, but I had
assumed I'd set the backup process in motion from the Vista 'Back & Restore'
feature on the laptops. From what you're saying, it seems that the server
'draws' the data from each laptop, rather than each laptop 'offering' it to
the server... (Sorry if all that makes me sound stupid - but really, I'm a
genius!)
Quote:
> You can go with a NAS, but it sounds like serious overkill for you. In
> addition, you've got a convoluted architecture with multiple routers,
> a slower connection to one system doing it's own backups, etc.
Fair enough.
Quote:
> If I were you, I'd "go simple". Forget about the gigabit, the
> multi-routers, the NAS. Set up a small server and keep all your data
> files on it for both systems. Buy a used machine... people are
> throwing out machines that will easily perform well as a server (1mhz,
> 1gb would do it). Buy MS Home server (a scaled down win2003) if you
> can't find 2003 at a reasonable price. Access the data via network
> shares. Backup that central machine periodically. Problem solved, no
> complications.
I'm stunned - are you saying the gigabit has marginal speed advantage over
USB 2.0? Or have I miss-understood? It that's the case, I'll just get a 1TB
USB drive and be done with it.
Your suggestion of accessing data via the central machine would require that
the laptops are permanently connected to the network (as I understand it),
but I don't think that would be convenient. But, I fear I may not be
understanding properly... *blushes*
Anyway, I have got proper studying to do (!) so I'll have to go for now.
Thanks for the info., Bob, it's much appreciated. I'll be back here
tomorrow.
Cheers,
Chris