Sign in to follow this  
DJ_Farid

How much CPU does a Samba-fileserver need?

Recommended Posts

I have plans on getting a server running SAMBA on Linux.

There is not that much money for this project. I am mainly trying to use parts that I already have or can get almost for free from friends.

The only thing the server is going to do is to share my mp3s with samba to my workstation and have a ftpd running. The ftpd does not use hardly any cpu.

I have never used samba, so my question is: How much CPU power do I need to be able to strem my mp3s to one (maybe two) users?

I want to listen to the mp3s directly from the server, without having to download them first to my workstation.

As it seems now, I am able to build a P2 350mhz from varios parts that I found. Will this be enough? Or should I try to get a P3 from somewhere?

I want to use a Intel-CPU since they use less power than AMD.

The server is supposed to use as little power as possible.

Anyone here with samba-experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P2 350 will be all you need and then some.

Best Regards

Theis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't need to use long file names you can put it on a 386 and run NetWare 3.12 :) NetWare 4 will run on a 486 and have long file name support. NT4 will run fine an a Pentium-class machine (perhaps even a 486) and minimal RAM. I'm not a *nix expert but for something simple like file and print serving nearly anything will do. Even Windows Server 2003 runs fine on a PII 350 with 128 MB RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it all depends how much else you want to do with it...

Without any graphical interface (Gnome/KDE...) you will be OK with 64 meg for little amount of user...

Note that the latest Linux versions tend to require more RAM...

The speed of the processor only matters if you plan to have a lot of IOs...

To just store files, you should be fine with 350 MHZ...

Good luck...

MEJV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note that the latest Linux versions tend to require more RAM...

There's no need to run the latest of anything for a simple file server IMO. Not being an expert I guess even old 2.2 kernel linuxen should do fine. And you don't have to worry about SCO ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason to run a 2.4 kernel in this instance would be for LBA 48(added at about 2.4.20) support or possibly USB support....

If you dont plan on using a 120GB+ drive I'd stick with any kernel and learn to use console instead of Xwindows... you also might find webmin an easy way to manage the server remotely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have plans on getting a server running SAMBA on Linux.

There is not that much money for this project. I am mainly trying to use parts that I already have or can get almost for free from friends.

The only thing the server is going to do is to share my mp3s with samba to my workstation and have a ftpd running. The ftpd does not use hardly any cpu.

I have never used samba, so my question is: How much CPU power do I need to be able to strem my mp3s to one (maybe two) users?

I want to listen to the mp3s directly from the server, without having to download them first to my workstation.

As it seems now, I am able to build a P2 350mhz from varios parts that I found. Will this be enough? Or should I try to get a P3 from somewhere?

I want to use a Intel-CPU since they use less power than AMD.

The server is supposed to use as little power as possible.

Anyone here with samba-experience?

If you want minimum power usage, you might see if you can find a cheap VIA C3 or similar and a Micro ATX board. These things use very, very little power, and the lower clocked versions can run fine with passive cooling (i.e. no cooling fan--there goes another 1-5 watts)

Note that early Intel CPUs used less power than similar AMD CPUs, but that this does not apply to modern CPUs.

Just about anything that can run Linux will be able to handle your load. Even a Pentium-90 with 32MB of RAM should be able to keep up with a few streaming MP3s. The new Samba 3.0 is reportedly several times faster than earlier versions in some situations, but that will likely make little difference for 2 users.

Also note that NT tends to outperform Samba for small loads, and Samba tends to outperform NT for larger loads. This may not be true for very low-end hardware though, which Linux runs more happily on (no forced GUI, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it seems now, I am able to build a P2 350mhz from varios parts that I found. Will this be enough? Or should I try to get a P3 from somewhere?

I have a P2-400 that does the same thing, and flawlessly. I'd save your mulah and stick with the P2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies!

I have an AMD K5 150Mhz with 40Mb ram that I use as a FTP-server right now. I run OpenBSD on it. The CPU and RAM power is more than enough.

I don't think that this machine would have enough power to work as a samba-server. (mostly for streaming mp3s).

The main reason why I want to upgrade this server is the slow io. Moving a file from one disk to another takes ages.

Now when I have decided on getting a new server, with that comes a total reinstall of the OS. I am going to install gentoo linux on it instead. This is mostly out of curiosity.

For the server I am going to get atleast one 120Gb IDE-disk.

I don't think that I will have any luck finding a micro-ATX board with my limited budget.

I am not going to use a graphical interface for the server.

I read somewhere that the powerusage of a P3 is basically the same as for a P2. (It was a long time ago though, my memory might fail :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The k5's and I think even the k6(not the k6-2 and up) were terrible at file I/O... something about the architecture... A pentiumMMX would likely be faster and possibly compatible with the same mobo. A PII for sure would have no problem maxing out a couple of older disks. anything more would likely be overkill on the CPU side, what you need to focus on is network and disk performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main reason why I want to upgrade this server is the slow io. Moving a file from one disk to another takes ages.

are you running softupdates? is the network adapter running in full-duplex 100bt? have you used a trivial str benchmark like bonnie? have you run ps/top/vmstat/etc while doing io to confirm it is infact the cpu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this