small personal file server, vista or xp?

M

mjz_5

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
3,637
I have a dual core AMD computer (4GB RAM) that i want to use as a basic file server (basic file shares)...

using gigabit (w/ jumbo frames)

which OS would you install? Which would provide faster transfers?? The main box accessing these files has Vista 64 installed...

i have access to the following OS:

Vista 64bit?
Windows XP?

what about searching? Does the vista workstation take advantage of the file servers index (if vista is installed?
 
Last edited:
I'd throw server 2003 on there if you had a license, otherwise vista/xp is probably a wash. Vista would probably want a bit more ram int he box though.

And on the question of searching, no.
 
Although I have yet to actually try it out, Windows Home Server (as noted by cytech) has gotten a pretty darned good reception. As soon as I can decide on a nice, small form factor box to run it on I will be installing it.
 
Why waste the windows xp or vista license.

That would make one hell of a freeNAS or OpenFiler box.Personally I would recommend Open Filer
 
I wanna stick with windows. I don't need WHS cause I won't need the duplication or expanding features. Just 2x 1.5 hard drives and I just want to know what will be faster transfers. I guess I'll try both and do some tests

I had xp installed than I purchase vista for it. So I have both lics. I have an employee purchase plan, so I got both for a good price :)
 
I would suggest Windows Home Server. It's easy to manage and has a ton of features, including one of the best home backup solutions.
 
ok ok ok... If for some reason we could get you to give openfiler a try you could use that vista / xp key somewhere else.


Anyways... XP normally only recognizes 3.5 gb of ram unless your adding the /pae extension in the boot.ini. So there is a remote chance that you might not be able to utilize all 4 gb of ram.

I have always thought xp was easier to make shares out of than vista.

Just my two cents
 
Just XP it. You have it, you're familiar with it, you can RDP to it to manage it, its straight out easy.
 
WHS has great features beyond the duplication (the pc backups for a start)

iirc you can get a 120day trial from MS; just try it out, if you don't like it stick XP back on.
 
I also have the WHS but, it's not totally free, its 6$ to have the trial sent to you. However, you can install another version over when you're ready to use it for real.
 
You already have XP...just use it. It's the simplest answer.
 
P3N1X0R said:
freebsd + samba +SWAT to manage it wiould be dead simple
Click to expand...
Ya, I think you and I have differing ideas about what's easy to manage. Freebsd? You have to be kidding.

OP; if you are comfortable with xp, go with that. Otherwise, go with vista.
 
yea, i'm comportable with both OS.. i'll just stick with XP, hopefully i can hit some nice 50+MB/s upload/downloads speeds!
 
From what I understand you will need to make sure to tweak your whole setup to be able to get those speeds. So your hard drives, right cables, jumbo frames etc etc good luck.
 
My experience thus far is that windows 7 displays the most high and consistent transfer speeds over LAN.
When I boot to my vista or XP OS's and transfer the same 7.5G file, the speeds are noticeably slower and has lower burst.
 
Try using fastcopy when doing large batches of files over lan.
 
What version of XP do you have, PRO or HOME??

Home sucks big time for filesharing. You can't manage users, permissions etc.. All you can do is just turn on filesharing and any shared folders can be accessed by anybody on the LAN.

I must check out fastcopy, thanks!
 
mjz_5 said:
which OS would you install? Which would provide faster transfers?? The main box accessing these files has Vista 64 installed...
Click to expand...

For speed capability, it's no contest -- Vista or later wins. Of course, if you're severely HD or network constrained, then they all may be around the same slow speed.

E.g., a comparison done using the same hardware varying the client OS, using Vista as the "server". This is a slightly different test than what you're considering. Vista client pushing to XP-64 "server" can also get very high speeds, but pulls are typically not as fast in my tests.

smb-transfer-vista.png
 
techguy101 said:
What version of XP do you have, PRO or HOME??

Home sucks big time for filesharing. You can't manage users, permissions etc.. All you can do is just turn on filesharing and any shared folders can be accessed by anybody on the LAN.

I must check out fastcopy, thanks!
Click to expand...

XP Home.

Without doing the research I am almost positive that that flavor of the XP edition wouldn't effect transfer speeds over LAN unless it was something to do with the driver set.
 
I'm not saying that it effects transfer speed but the overall management of the file sharing will be severely lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top