[RAILhead]

I'm posting this here since I'm not really asking about OS X Server per se, or anything about how to use it necessarily — I'm more "proof of concept-ing" the idea of having a server at home.

I run 4 systems (1 Desktop, 3 portables), and I use AirPort wireless throughout the house.

I know I don't really need a server, but what would be some reasons I might consider having one, outside of localized backups?

Not that I would get it, but the Mac mini Server got me to thinking about it...

Thoughts?

[The Godfather]

Because you want to spend $800 more for not having to learn Linux administration.

[besson3c]

If he's managed to survive without a Linux server in his home for all of these years, how does this change things?

[RAILhead]

Yeah, I'm not getting the Linux thing.

[besson3c]

My advice (for anybody reading this, I know this is a little basic for your level of knowledge, Railhead)...

The term "server" is often abused. Some people seem to think of it as a powerful computer that is often racked. Some people think of it as having special hardware that is not found in common PCs. The truth is, you can buy servers that use the exact same components you can get on NewEgg or whatever for your Mac. I tend to think that the most useful definition is based on the function that the machine performs. That is, if you are "serving" multiple people or computers, it is a server.

In the case of the Mac Mini, what you would be getting is just a consumer PC in a form factor that could be attractive to use as a server. However, there is nothing new here. You could run last week's Mac Mini as a server too, or any other Mac you have in the house. The only difference here is the software license for OS X Server.

To me, what would be most convenient in a home server is expandability, taking up little space, power consumption, and noise. The Mini is great for the latter three, but not so much the expandability. If you are wanting to back your crap up, it would make more sense in my opinion to buy a computer with a hard drive you can easily swap out in the event of a problem so that you can grow your storage as needed. Having multiple drive bays makes it very handy to copy from a smaller drive to a larger one when you want to do this, and you can also run a software RAID 1 mirror if your data is important enough.

As far as price goes, if you just want a giant disk, you can build a Shuttle PC or something like that much cheaper and have many of the same advantages (small, quiet, energy efficient), and have room to grow. You might be able to run Hackintosh on it, or else just run Ubuntu Linux if all you need is something to back up to.

As far as other reasons for having a server, I guess that depends on what your needs are, but I would still say that you don't necessarily need a new Mac Mini for that. You could transform just about any hardware you have into something useful, providing you can use SATA drives with it in the event that you need a lot of storage capacity.

My home Ubuntu machine is used for testing VMWare Server, my media center connected to my TV, a print server, file/media backup/storage, and I used to host iTunes shares too. A home "server" can be convenient, but if you can't think of any reason to run this on dedicated hardware, perhaps you don't need to.

[sdilley14]

I was sort of wondering the same thing since they released the new Mini. I guess I just don't really understand why they did it. What purpose is this machine really going to serve. What niche market are they hoping to serve with this. I'm not against it or whining about it, I just don't really understand the reasoning behind it...?

[RAILhead]

Well, I guess my OP wasn't really meant to speak directly to the mini as a server — I was more asking, as a home user with 4 systems, is there any benefit to having a server setup at home? All my systems run IMAP, for example, so why would I need to run mail through a server? Any benefit? Pushing updates? Etc., etc., etc...

[besson3c]

If you want to own your mail store, running your own mail server is obviously the only real option. A lot of people think that SMTP and IMAP have to be on the same machine, they don't. You could store your IMAP mail on your home computer and send via your usual SMTP server. This would be recommended, unless you want to spend time learning the ins and outs of SMTP, spam filtration, managing queues, etc.

I guess I can't really answer the "is there any benefit" question without really knowing how a machine might make your life easier. I've listed some of the things I do with my machine, but I have no clue if this applies to you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by sdilley14 

I was sort of wondering the same thing since they released the new Mini. I guess I just don't really understand why they did it. What purpose is this machine really going to serve. What niche market are they hoping to serve with this. I'm not against it or whining about it, I just don't really understand the reasoning behind it...?

The Mini would be a good machine to build a cluster with because of its footprint, and it might be a fun toy for a hobbyist of some sort, but I agree that this population is limited and that there was nothing stopping these same hobbyists for messing around with OS X Server prior.

[downinflames68]

'cuz you want a ponytail.

[Chuckit]

Keep in mind that you don't need OS X Server to run a server at home. OS X client makes a fine server. Like, unless you want Apple's wiki and podcast servers or have more than 10 people in your house, it doesn't bring much to the table for home use. The Mini Server seems more suited to small businesses IMO.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Well, I guess my OP wasn't really meant to speak directly to the mini as a server — I was more asking, as a home user with 4 systems, is there any benefit to having a server setup at home?

I've had a dedicated file server since I built my new machine in February. The motherboard's IDE controller crapped a few weeks ago (it was an old machine), so I built a new one that's currently running Windows Server 2008 Enterprise (gasp, moan, blah blah, I know).

It is really nice to have dedicated file storage. Not only can I share my files from a single machine across my entire network (all said and told we now own a total of...six desktops and five laptops, plus two more laptops from boyfriend's employers), but I don't have to have one my machines on all the time (versus having a separate file server running that I don't touch for anything but file serving).

It's also a big peace of mind to know that now my files are finally on a RAID, so that if a hard drive fails, my data isn't permanently lost.

IMO this new Mini and the Time Capsule thing from Apple are both ripoffs. It's not a good idea - ever - to rely on a single hard drive for your data storage. If that drive goes out on you, it can cost thousands of dollars to recover your data. It's a much, much, much better idea to have some kind of disk redundancy. Setting up a server with RAID 5 on three WD "green" 640GB SATA hard drives (for a total of 1.2 TB storage) cost me under $600, and that included a fourth hard drive that I'm keeping as a hot swap in the event that one of the drives kicks.

There are also other benefits to running your own server - you can learn about server administration (which I personally enjoy), and you can host other services on your LAN - DNS and DHCP, a mail server, and web hosting. I realize that OS X can host websites (as can Windows), but having a dedicated server for that kind of thing is very nice. It really just depends on your needs.

[OreoCookie]

You can have centralized storage, user accounts (if you want to) and services. This way, you can always have the same home directory on all of your machines. You can have nice things such as Mobile Access Server, your own VPN and Portable Home Directories (which means even if you are away from your network with one of your laptops, you still have access to `your' home directory.

Most of these things can be done with other solutions, but they often require quite a bit of tinkering.

[starman]

I had Mac OS X server at home back when I had a G5 with only 2 drive bays. Once I went to a Mac Pro with 4 drive bays, the need for a server in the house became zero. Everything's in one of those bays and if I have to share something I pop it in a public folder. Done.

That said, I think the Mini/Server combo's awesome for small businesses.

[Phileas]

Unless you've got large files to take care of, you'd be much better off with a service like dropbox for file sharing and backup.

We run pretty much our entire business on dropbox, with the exception of video and music files. These are shared via a Mini connected to a drobo for data redundancy. No special server setup is needed.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To me, what would be most convenient in a home server is expandability, taking up little space, power consumption, and noise. The Mini is great for the latter three, but not so much the expandability. If you are wanting to back your crap up, it would make more sense in my opinion to buy a computer with a hard drive you can easily swap out in the event of a problem so that you can grow your storage as needed.

Mac mini + SATA dock = cheap and excellent home server (doesn't have to run OS X Server though) with lots of expansion and backup options.

[olePigeon]

OS X Server works as a Time Machine Server, as well. It's like Windows Home Server, but not crippled.

[slugslugslug]

Do you need a "Time Machine server", though? I thought any 10.5+ machine with file sharing on can be used for Time Machine backups from any other mac, regardless of whether it's using OS X Server.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I've had a dedicated file server since I built my new machine in February. The motherboard's IDE controller crapped a few weeks ago (it was an old machine), so I built a new one that's currently running Windows Server 2008 Enterprise (gasp, moan, blah blah, I know).

It is really nice to have dedicated file storage. Not only can I share my files from a single machine across my entire network (all said and told we now own a total of...six desktops and five laptops, plus two more laptops from boyfriend's employers), but I don't have to have one my machines on all the time (versus having a separate file server running that I don't touch for anything but file serving).

It's also a big peace of mind to know that now my files are finally on a RAID, so that if a hard drive fails, my data isn't permanently lost.

IMO this new Mini and the Time Capsule thing from Apple are both ripoffs. It's not a good idea - ever - to rely on a single hard drive for your data storage. If that drive goes out on you, it can cost thousands of dollars to recover your data. It's a much, much, much better idea to have some kind of disk redundancy. Setting up a server with RAID 5 on three WD "green" 640GB SATA hard drives (for a total of 1.2 TB storage) cost me under $600, and that included a fourth hard drive that I'm keeping as a hot swap in the event that one of the drives kicks.

There are also other benefits to running your own server - you can learn about server administration (which I personally enjoy), and you can host other services on your LAN - DNS and DHCP, a mail server, and web hosting. I realize that OS X can host websites (as can Windows), but having a dedicated server for that kind of thing is very nice. It really just depends on your needs.

Hey Shif,

What have you done to address the RAID-5 write hole? Do you have a hardware RAID-5 card? How long does its battery last?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Unless you've got large files to take care of, you'd be much better off with a service like dropbox for file sharing and backup.

We run pretty much our entire business on dropbox, with the exception of video and music files. These are shared via a Mini connected to a drobo for data redundancy. No special server setup is needed.

The problem with that sort of thing is, whenever you have a large disk image, high resolution image, whatever, it takes *forever* to upload all of that with most ISPs who severely throttle their upload speeds. Not only that, but while you are uploading that large file your download speeds are crippled too.

Maybe my ISP just throttles more than most, I don't know.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Mac mini + SATA dock = cheap and excellent home server (doesn't have to run OS X Server though) with lots of expansion and backup options.

True, but if you have to plug in another device into this, the whole space saving advantage goes out the window. At this point it might be better to find a larger case with multiple drive bays, unless you are dead set on using "pure" OS X (i.e. not Hackintosh) and don't want a Mac Pro.

I still wonder how long it will be before multiple hard drives in Macs become standard.

[The Final Dakar]

Are multiple hard drives standard anywhere?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are multiple hard drives standard anywhere?

Multiple drive bays are standard in all sorts of non Apple PCs, but the problem is making the software part of it user-friendly so that your Grandma can use RAID-1, and so that her computer will fail over to the mirror drive in the event of a SMART failure, notifying her to replace the bad drive (not that replacing a dead hard drive is a Grandma friendly task, but better to fail over than just explode in her Grandma face).

[besson3c]

That neat software solution, BTW, seems like it would be right up Apple's alley. Even if the mirrored drive was external and sold as a BTO option, I think that this would be a great feature. I'm not sure why Apple hasn't ceased this opportunity.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

True, but if you have to plug in another device into this, the whole space saving advantage goes out the window. At this point it might be better to find a larger case with multiple drive bays, unless you are dead set on using "pure" OS X (i.e. not Hackintosh) and don't want a Mac Pro.

Even you're willing to accept that a larger (PC) case means hackintosh (and that's still a huge if) you're going to have to deal with minimizing noise. It's going to be very hard to find a PC case close to as small as the mini with bays that remains as quiet as a mini. And high-quality cases with very quiet fans are usually quite expensive.

So it can certainly be done, but in many cases the mini plus a compact $20 SATA dock will be not only the path of least resistance, but also quite efficient in terms of price-performance.

[besson3c]

Shuttle Barebones PCs are very cheap, and pretty much completely silent. The fans come on only when needed, and are still very silent. Silent PCs are Shuttle's gig. Barebones Shuttle PCs also start at $200 on NewEgg. Add your hard drive(s), RAM, CPU, and you're set.

This one at $225 includes 4 drive bays:

Newegg.com - Shuttle XPC Glamor SG45H7 Intel Socket T(LGA775) Intel G45 4 x 240Pin Intel GMA X4500HD Black Barebone - Barebone Systems

[Simon]

No offense, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to argue here, besson. Even if that Shuttle is as quiet as a mini, it's still 8x the size of a mini. It's volume is equal to eight Mac minis. And you'd still have to run it as a hackintosh.

Out of curiosity, adding similar components, how much will it cost? The Mac mini's $599 should be fairly easy to beat, but by how much?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

No offense, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to argue here, besson. Even if that Shuttle is as quiet as a mini, it's still 8x the size of a mini. It's volume is equal to eight Mac minis. And you'd still have to run it as a hackintosh.

Out of curiosity, adding similar components, how much will it cost? The Mac mini's $599 should be fairly easy to beat, but by how much?

8x the size after adding the SATA dock and drives? That's my point. If you want storage and are bothered by being tethered to a single non-upgradeable drive (or at least not easily upgradeable), you might be better off going with something else. I'm big into having room to grow, I don't like the whole upgrade-every-three-years cycle, especially when that means disposing of your entire computer. The only exception I make is laptops, but I'm not a fan of disposable desktop computers.

As far as the price comparison, the Mini starts at $600. Its max RAM is 4 gig, it has one drive bay. The Shuttle I linked goes up to 16 gig of RAM, has 4 drive bays, 6 USB ports, and will accept any Intel Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo, P4, or Celeron 400 CPU (Socket T). Unless you want to play games on this thing, you could probably put in just about any processor you wanted and upgrade later if necessary. For the sake of comparison, let's go with a 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo - this is $120. You have a pretty good idea how much RAM and hard drives cost, I'm sure. You can get the Shuttle in a version for AMD processors if you want to go even cheaper.

The difference is hundreds of dollars, plus you end up with a silent PC that will accept a Core 2 Quad, 4 drives, and 16 gig of RAM. It also has 2 PCI slots so that you could get a RAID 5 controller, if you wished to.

[pra9ab0y]

Forget all prior comments and thoughts and think of this as your job.

This is the situation!

Say one bought a mac mini as a server. - Thats done! No going back. The mini is bought. I dont want a shuttle thingymajig or a windows hackintosh crap. I have a mac mini.

How does one go about setting up the centralized users option on an OS X Server? I am a pro photographer and one of my biggest issues is getting my RAW files from my macbook pro that accompanies me to a photoshoot out of the aperture library and onto a desktop mac.

Just a theory.
With a centralized user account in theory I could be running the same user account on my laptop and desktop with changes happening on both? But then I could have an external raid plugged into my desktop and manage all of my backups and long term storage from there? This means I could be using the same Aperture library to manage my projects but have it available both on the go and in the office. With it being up to date on whatever machine I decide to use.

Is this possible or do I have my head in the clouds?

[NeverTriedApple]

I had Mac Mini running Leopard Server a year or so back. I am running a small business and we had it in our small office as a near silent email/document server with backup capability (via TM), serving two users/laptops. I really couldn't fault it:

1. Small footprint - fits everywhere
2. Extremely Energy efficient - goes easy on bills
3. Powerful and swift enough for what we used it for (email & file server)
4. Virtually silent
5. Required minimum to none maintenance
6. Automatic out-of-the box backups

It was good tiny little machine, perfectly balanced small group server, great value for money. Since then we moved to hosted email (Google Apps) and small Mac Mini retired. If I ever decide to go back to self hosting my emails Mac Mini would on my list. I am also a FreeBSD fan but only if time permits.

[NeverTriedApple]

Sorry I am not sure I got you but it seems to me that having a couple of RAID-1 USB/FW storages (one for your library and another for Time Machine), both attached to your Desktop Mac would be an easier and much simpler solution. Remember that adding a Mac Mini will complicate your network setup with extra albeit low maintenance and another point of failure if something goes wrong (eventually everything does).

Despite you would still need an ample storage attached externally as Mac Mini's HDD could be/become quite small over time working with RAW images. So here you go: you do need an extra disk space (disk redundancy is a BIG "+") but you don't need a Mac Mini as you can easily hook it to your Mac Desktop (or Macbook Pro if Desktop is down).

Originally Posted by pra9ab0y 

Forget all prior comments and thoughts and think of this as your job.

This is the situation!

Say one bought a mac mini as a server. - Thats done! No going back. The mini is bought. I dont want a shuttle thingymajig or a windows hackintosh crap. I have a mac mini.

How does one go about setting up the centralized users option on an OS X Server? I am a pro photographer and one of my biggest issues is getting my RAW files from my macbook pro that accompanies me to a photoshoot out of the aperture library and onto a desktop mac.

Just a theory.
With a centralized user account in theory I could be running the same user account on my laptop and desktop with changes happening on both? But then I could have an external raid plugged into my desktop and manage all of my backups and long term storage from there? This means I could be using the same Aperture library to manage my projects but have it available both on the go and in the office. With it being up to date on whatever machine I decide to use.

Is this possible or do I have my head in the clouds?

[pra9ab0y]

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple 

Sorry I am not sure I got you but it seems to me that having a couple of RAID-1 USB/FW storages (one for your library and another for Time Machine), both attached to your Desktop Mac would be an easier and much simpler solution. Remember that adding a Mac Mini will complicate your network setup with extra albeit low maintenance and another point of failure if something goes wrong (eventually everything does).

Despite you would still need an ample storage attached externally as Mac Mini's HDD could be/become quite small over time working with RAW images. So here you go: you do need an extra disk space (disk redundancy is a BIG "+") but you don't need a Mac Mini as you can easily hook it to your Mac Desktop (or Macbook Pro if Desktop is down).

Cool. But what about centralized user accounts? This would save me time having to add stuff to 2 libraries.

[NeverTriedApple]

Originally Posted by pra9ab0y 

Cool. But what about centralized user accounts? This would save me time having to add stuff to 2 libraries.

No need centralized accounts. Buy/get one of the [two] RAID storages with network interface and hook it to your router or if you have Airport Extreme, use USB port on the back (no need for network RAID aka NAS in this case). This way it will be accessible regardless of computer used.

[pra9ab0y]

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple 

No need centralized accounts. Buy/get one of the [two] RAID storages with network interface and hook it to your router or if you have Airport Extreme, use USB port on the back (no need for network RAID aka NAS in this case). This way it will be accessible regardless of computer used.

I build up about 16gb of RAW's a day! That isn't very wise to send it all though my airport base station! And it don't solve the issue of the shared library. I've made a new thread so ill continue over there so as not to hijack this one.

[besson3c]

A centralized account for your setup would be pretty easy, and not a bad idea, but do you understand that this means that you couldn't really leave your house without a massive data dump to your internal hard drive in advance?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hey Shif,

What have you done to address the RAID-5 write hole? Do you have a hardware RAID-5 card? How long does its battery last?

Cheap battery backup with USB to instruct the computer to shutdown gracefully.

I wouldn't recommend a RAID card to someone doing a home RAID like I am - you're stuck buying the same card later down the line if something fails, whereas a software-based RAID needs only the same OS on any hardware to work.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Cheap battery backup with USB to instruct the computer to shutdown gracefully.

I wouldn't recommend a RAID card to someone doing a home RAID like I am - you're stuck buying the same card later down the line if something fails, whereas a software-based RAID needs only the same OS on any hardware to work.

I wouldn't recommend software RAID-5 either with important data.

[shifuimam]

I dunno. The server-admins-by-profession I've talked to about my options have recommended software RAID over hardware RAID for my needs.

I think I'm more apt to listen to people with years of experience in this particular field.

Also worth noting that when my IDE controller went south on my old server, all I had to do was move over my drives and the PCI controller card they were attached to, and Windows found my RAID, recovered my data, and I was safely able to copy all 320+ GB to my new RAID without a hitch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I dunno. The server-admins-by-profession I've talked to about my options have recommended software RAID over hardware RAID for my needs.

I think I'm more apt to listen to people with years of experience in this particular field.

Don't listen to me then, read the Wikipedia page:

Standard RAID levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look for "write hole" on the page in the RAID-5 section.

[NeverTriedApple]

Originally Posted by pra9ab0y 

I build up about 16gb of RAW's a day! That isn't very wise to send it all though my airport base station! And it don't solve the issue of the shared library. I've made a new thread so ill continue over there so as not to hijack this one.

1. Airport Extreme does have three 1GB ethernet ports on the back. One doesn't have to use wireless connectivity.

2. Based on your post I replied first, I thought you were thinking of implementing this setup using Mac Mini which still had to have network connectivity? I offered you to eliminate Mac Mini and use storage directly attached to your desktop or network for simplicity. Using centralized account in your case, IMHO is excessive since as besson3c said sync/dumping your profile would be an overhead. In either case (with or without Mac Mini & centralized a/c) you have bottleneck of moving large chunks of data via network. Unless of course you want to work with two different drive sets attached via FW800 to your Desktop and Macbook and somehow sync them later.

Cheers.

[pra9ab0y]

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple 

1. Airport Extreme does have three 1GB ethernet ports on the back. One doesn't have to use wireless connectivity.

2. Based on your post I replied first, I thought you were thinking of implementing this setup using Mac Mini which still had to have network connectivity? I offered you to eliminate Mac Mini and use storage directly attached to your desktop or network for simplicity. Using centralized account in your case, IMHO is excessive since as besson3c said sync/dumping your profile would be an overhead. In either case (with or without Mac Mini & centralized a/c) you have bottleneck of moving large chunks of data via network. Unless of course you want to work with two different drive sets attached via FW800 to your Desktop and Macbook and somehow sync them later.

Cheers.

Your missing the point. I am open to suggestions. I am not looking to perfect any kind of setup right now. Just trying to get an idea of how things would/could work.

- Yeah I know it has network ports on the back but I don't want to use them or anything networked to move files around. I don't think I can explain what i'm thinking as I dont know enough on the subject. I only mentioned a mac mini so that I could maybe have a centralized user - meaning settings/configs and stuff the same mac to mac. I don't know how I would solve the issue of having to do a large data dump. Unless I had Aperture reference my library to an external and then just carry that with me. And then have it mirror to something when I get back!? Not sure....

[NeverTriedApple]

Why do you need two computers for photo editing anyway? Getting one strong MBP is not an option? Just a thought.

PS: I'm not chasing you or making you choose here and now. I'm a bit bored now and curious.

[pra9ab0y]

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple 

Why do you need two computers for photo editing anyway? Getting one strong MBP is not an option? Just a thought.

PS: I'm not chasing you or making you choose here and now. I'm a bit bored now and curious.

Basically I'm a photographer in need of a serious slap! I go to photoshoots I take my laptop and all my gear and I use it on the site. I tether my camera to my macbook and have the files dropped into Aperture so I can see them basically as soon as I take them. See the shots, test the focus, lighting on the big screen of the macbook. So that's fine. Not only does this allow me to see my photos large so I can check my work, it also automatically puts them into the project/folder I choose in my aperture library. So Im saving time there. BUT. I have found that the macbook is getting slow. The battery on it is going and all that random stuff. And was ideally looking to get a desktop so I can speed up my workflow. So when it comes to adjusting the photos, merging them making final finished photos that I would be happy to send to my clients. I get stuck on the macbook.

Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 4 GB

Thats the basic macbook spec, it is not a slow machine for general use. but when you have Aperture, Photoshop, mail, safari, illustrator, itunes, camera utilities it does start to slow. but I need all of those open to edit the photos at some point or another depending on the shoot.

So I wanted to get a desktop, just because they're faster, you can add more ram. And it also gives me somewhere to sit and work. Plus I can have everything plugged into it and in one place. So I would use both machines. I dont know what i would do without a mac-camera tether. - any show you see that has photographers in the studio you always see this setup so it is the done thing and not just something ive come up with. thats my basis for having the macbook and the desktop.

[NeverTriedApple]

A typical photo editing job is no different across the photographers board. A strong MBP with 8GB ram and 3GHz CPU should be more than enough for the task. RAW images from my 24MP Sony A900 get processed by my missus' 17" MBP 2.4/4GB RAM laptop without a glitch. Thanks to fast SLC SSD drive inside but still. The benefit of this is that all 'hard' work is done on single machine without unnecessary files transfer, duplication or syncing. After resizing/balancing images she saves them into 'library', just as you do, for family access or further web upload.

[RAILhead]

OKAY, I'm stepping in since this WAS my thread.

ALL of you are missing the point to my OP.

I merely asked, as a home user, why would I potentially be interested in having a "server" setup in my home?

THAT'S the question I asked. I'm not interested in types, styles, machines, hardware vs software — I want to walk into your "computer store" and I want you to try and sell me on the benefits of having a server setup in my home.

[NeverTriedApple]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

OKAY, I'm stepping in since this WAS my thread.

ALL of you are missing the point to my OP.

I merely asked, as a home user, why would I potentially be interested in having a "server" setup in my home?

THAT'S the question I asked. I'm not interested in types, styles, machines, hardware vs software — I want to walk into your "computer store" and I want you to try and sell me on the benefits of having a server setup in my home.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

PS: Nasty toe but nice telecaster.

[RAILhead]

That's no answer, either.

You guys and gals are letting me down in a BIG way.

[NeverTriedApple]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

That's no answer, either.

You guys and gals are letting me down in a BIG way.

Lemme tell you the story. It all started with buying ERP software for my business. Although I could easily host it on our existing mail server, I quickly justified the need for a separate machine, an ERP server. At that point we were and are only two people using it (software). Then I realized that having two servers now it would be nice to have a separate machine to backup them up, a backup server. And so forth: another server for testing purposes, managed switch, ASA firewall, UPS battery, spare parts for all of them, etc etc..

At the very end (before I got fed up with maintaining seven machines and eventually decommissioned all of them) I had a 22U rack cabinet full of equipment and absolutely no time to administer it. I learned my lesson: I keep everything simple and don't fix it if it ain't broke.

[Cold Warrior]

Most people won't need it. Stand-out features for the uber-user are
- mobile access server
- mail services
- vpn
- NAS (via smb, nfs, afp) on a machine that actually has some power to it

Pair a dyndns domain address (or purchase one), with the backend services of SL Server, and these features have a lot of value. Access to my LAN from an iPhone; in-house email services; and VPN for remote access or -- in particular -- total masking of one's Internet activity while on an untrusted or public network (e.g., traveling, hotels, etc.).

You can do that now with a lot of work on your own, but SL Server can unlock multiple capabilities for power users. The Mac mini makes it more affordable.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't listen to me then, read the Wikipedia page:

Standard RAID levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look for "write hole" on the page in the RAID-5 section.

Yes, write holes can happen if the server fails in the middle of a write to the disk. That can happen regardless of whether you're running a software RAID or a hardware RAID; if the server hardware itself fails, you can suffer data loss. If the server loses power, it doesn't matter whether you're using a $5,000 RAID controller or a free software RAID in Linux - you're still going to risk losing data. I realize that a RAID controller can be slightly better than a software RAID in the event that the OS itself crashes, but the odds of that happening on a machine that's not doing anything but sitting there serving files is much much lower than the odds of the power going out (which happened today during a storm, and has happened three times on a particular outlet in our office).

So yes, I listen to the people who have extensive experience in this area rather than listening to your endless ramblings.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I merely asked, as a home user, why would I potentially be interested in having a "server" setup in my home?

It depends on your needs. Period.

Do you want a dedicated location for storing a large quantity of data? A server with some kind of RAID (to protect against many physical disk failures) is a good idea.

Do you want to be able to host websites from your home? A web server can be great, as long as your ISP doesn't block incoming port 80 connections (Cox does; most residential ISPs prohibit hosting in the TOS).

Do you want to be able to have a private VPN so that you can always connect to the Internet securely from any location? That's another good use for a server.

Do you frequently find yourself sharing large files? Set up SFTP so that friends and family can send files to you, and so that you can send files to them.

I would say that for you, particularly since photography seems to be pretty important to your life, a file server could be pretty damn handy, particularly since it offers more protection over using just the hard drive in your personal computer.