No worries; once we get the information we need, we can make a solid recommendation.Tman said:AGAIN: guys I am very sorry for not providing you with the correct info. I am also sorry about
If we go with uhappy's 1 MB/sec mark, then you'll want 4 MB/sec to serve those four users. That's well within the speed of your wired 100 mb/sec network, and shouldn't require anything special at all in the way of your disk subsystem. You have plenty of headroom, too, if you want to go to a higher bitrate later.Tman said:- Computers acessing the mucis, stored dvd's, TV shows, etc on this pc at one time will be a max of maybe 4.
Tman said:Still want 1g of ram. Large power supply for later upgrades, and for HD's
instead of 12x 300g's for 3.6TB why not go for 8x 300g for 2.4TB.
More memory can help with caching; though I don't think it's necessary, it's pretty cheap.
I can't guess why you'd ever want dual-procs on this machine. Again, are you going to use encryption (like IPSEC) or file system compression? If so, then maybe you need more CPU--but I still don't think a dual-core or dual-proc Pentium 4s would be warranted.
The total storeage you'll use is completely up to you: we have no idea how much you need now, or will want for future use. Or if you'll want to expand later.
If you buy eight 300 gig drives and set them up in RAID 0 to get 2.4 terabytes, you'll have no backup. If one single drive in the array fails, you lose the data on the whole array.
If you have some backupmechanism (like a separate machine that mirrors the data), then you can safely use RAID 0; it's just that you have a non-trivial recovery task. If you use RAID 10 or RAID 5, then you can gain some fault tolerance... but still might want to choose an external backup mechanism. While RAID 10 and RAID 5 might help against losing a drive, they don't help against a virus infection, a physical catastrophe, or an errant user.
Yep. I asked, and you answered.unhappy_mage said:I later gave benchmarks; don't they apply?