Hi all, I'm thinking of getting another computer with the intention of using it to experiment with by running various types of server-y stuff on it (such as DCHP, file server etc) and using it to fiddle with other network stuff like access restrictions and what not, and ultimately set up a file/media server for 3-4 different machines to use as currently everything is spread out over several machines and HDD's.

As it stands currently I've got a main laptop I use for most stuff, and a little netbook that I take to uni for typing and stuff on as the battery on the laptop isn't good enough, and it's too heavy to lug around.

While it doesn't have to be lightning fast, I'd like it to be able to run windows/ Linux server operating systems and have a low power usage. I've been looking at two different options - getting something like this and just upgrading the HDD to something bigger or bulding my own system using a motherboard like this. I'm expecting the latter would work out more expensive, and it's not something I've done before so while it could be good for experience, I can see it going wrong too. (I don't need a screen as I'll plug it into the telly.)

Assuming these are likely to be powerful enough, which would be the better option keeping lower costs in mind lower power consumption? And if they're not good enough, what sorta system should I be setting my sights on?

Thanks for any help,

Joe.

Always use these little blighters for testing O/S's and Virtual machines on!

http://www.serversdirect.co.uk/HP_Proliant_ML110_G6__Dual_Core_G6950_Micro_tower_Server__578930-035/version.asp?PID=768

Got a few older g5's that have been bashed from pillar to post and still working.

Cheap enough!

The Atom processor is a good choice - for relatively basic tasks as you've mentioned, the performance should be actually very good compared to a lowend dedicated NAS device and the power consumption is low. In addition the Ion chipset means you can actually have decent video performance if you decide you want to go that route. The little Revo PCs are also a good choice as they're relatively cheap and for this purpose they have an esata port which gives you a very high performance connection to an external drive should you need it.

For your second option you do have the option for a bit more customisation such as having an optical drive or choosing a suitable chassis with space for 3.5in drives. There was a mini-ITX chassis I saw which allowed you to fit the Atom motherboard with a 2.5in drive for its OS and then two hot swappable bays for 3.5in drives which would make for a solid NAS device. I didn't go any further though as the costs were looking fairly high for that solution.

I started off a similar route a while, I wanted a PC on all the time hooked up to a TV that could be used to watch media including the likes of Iplayer, function as a NAS and handle any downloading but crucially all without burning too much power. My first machine was an old 12in Dell Latitude laptop with a P3 1.2Ghz or something, the machine had a broken screen and couldn't charge a battery but was otherwise fine and therefore ideal for my use. I took the screen off entirely so it was little more than a keyboard/trackpad and set it up to host files both over shares and media sharing (for the consoles), scheduled downloading and shortcuts for the various TV catchup players, it had a Seagate 750GB drive hooked up externally. The system's power consumption was low and it was almost silent which made it work well in this setup however over time it was struggling to play back HD media and the Iplayer smoothly so it was time for an upgrade although otherwise the machine was speedy enough and had no trouble with the filesharing or similar. I replaced it with a Dell Hybrid which uses a laptop processor and platform to keep power consumption down and for my use, it had a blu-ray drive which is ideal. That machine is still in use although its setup is relatively basic, I did try juggling OS's by having Windows 7 as the host OS to handle media playback and then running a virtual WHS to handle all the fileserving but the performance was too erratic in the host OS.

I have been toying with putting another system in place that would be solely for NAS but can't help thinking I'm spending money for the sake of it.

John