OT: New PC! Sorta...

[AstralWanderer]

AgentZero said:
2) I want the machine to connect to the wireless network, but not have any access to/from the internet. Is there an easy way of doing this?

Any linux distro should include a firewall which you can configure to limit traffic to your local network only (by default, most local networks use the 192.168.*.* address range which is reserved for private use - those addresses should never appear on the Internet itself so limiting traffic to that address range should work).

Your wireless router should include a firewall also, so if you have the ability to configure that it should be possible to block access to/from your server from the Internet. Wireless networks are subject to eavesdropping so try to ensure that you use the best encryption possible (WPA if you can).

AgentZero said:
3) What would be the best way of getting the most storage capacity for my dollar. I'm looking for something in the 1-2TB range, and it can be stuck in a big case, so multiple HDs is not a problem.

Wait till after Christmas - prices always drop then.

AgentZero said:
4) Assuming I'm using SATA drives, how easy would it be to RAID together several volumes into one big one? Would I need a separate RAID controller?

No, as Linux has the ability to handle RAID in software (see Ubuntu Help: FakeRAID HowTo). Getting a motherboard BIOS that offers RAID is of no benefit and can complicate issues. A dedicated RAID controller may offer better disk speeds, but your bottleneck is going to be with the wireless connection anyway so it would offer no benefit.

AgentZero said:
5) With a server like the one I'm describing, where can I afford to skimp, and where should I invest money...I want to have a pretty reliable & zippy wireless connection, so what sort of wireless card should I look at? And what about the CPU and RAM?

Well, wireless is going to be the main speed problem. You could work around this by using wired connections for as many PCs as possible (so fewer have to share the wireless bandwidth) and maybe try adding a second wireless network (ensuring that its router is configured to use a channel at least 5 away from the main router) and configuring some PCs to use that instead.

As far as wireless standards go, 802.11a should offer the best performance (802.11g has the same speed in theory but is vulnerable to interference from 802.11b, Bluetooth, HomeRF, videosenders, microwave ovens and anything else using the unregulated 2.4Ghz frequency band) but will cost more. 802.11n may be worth looking into once the standard is firmed up, but "pre-N" routers command a hefty price premium at the moment, with no guarantee that they will work with future standards-compliant equipment.

Wireless Standards - 802.11b 802.11a 802.11g and 802.11n has more information about the pros and cons of the different technologies.

AgentZero said:Would I need a fairly hefty processor, or would a $50 Celeron suffice?

I'd agree with the advice given above - processor speed is of relatively small importance. RAM would matter more, but again with a wireless connection is unlikely to be a bottleneck.

One gotcha however is going to be Windows Vista - Microsoft changed its printer/file sharing so it doesn't work with Samba by default - see Getting Vista to work with Samba for details. Samba would be a better choice than VNC since it is designed for file-sharing (VNC is more for remote management) and should appear just like an extra drive to your users.

[AgentZero]

The server won't be streaming any audio/video or anything crazy like that, it's just going to be for storing files. When we want stuff, we just copy it to our computer and run it from there.

And as much as I'd like to have a wired connection, most of the people in residence have laptops, so wired connections wouldn't work too well. Although I'm pretty sure the wired & wireless connections are on the same network, so I suppose I could theoretically have the server wired, and have people connect to it wirelessly, but of course that wouldn't do much to reduce the bottleneck...

I looked at Samba, and it seems to fit the bill, and the most recent version seems to have added support to work with Vista, according to the link above...

[Fyron]

If it isn't even going to be used for playing back files locally, you don't even need a pentium 4/athlon level CPU for the job (though you'll have trouble finding anything with SATA or lots of IDE ports with a P3 or something )... Just figure out what CPU you can get for a motherboard with the drive connectors you need, that draws the minimum amount of power. No point in putting in a power-hungry CPU (I'm looking at you Athlon/Sempron and Pentium/Celeron) to just act as a file server; might as well minimize the electric requirements, for the lowest cost of running it. Look into micro-atx style motherboards/processors; some sort of Pentium M CPU would be great. You can still use such systems for local playback if you need to, naturally.

[AgentZero]

Well, the cheapest CPU that I can find is a Celeron but it fits into a LGA775, so I can use motherboards that support SATA and so forth.

I'm still rather lost in the OS department though. If people are going to be connecting through Samba, it doesn't even really need much of a GUI really, although it'd be nice to have one to set the thing up...

[AstralWanderer]

AgentZero said:
The server won't be streaming any audio/video or anything crazy like that, it's just going to be for storing files. When we want stuff, we just copy it to our computer and run it from there.

The network load will depend upon file sizes and these can get pretty large for por..uh..video. If usage is likely to be frequent, then wireless bandwidth (54Mb/s will translate to 5MB/s at best - say 2-300KB/s per person if everyone is accessing at the same time, allowing for contention) may need some attention.

Streaming audio/video would likely be less demanding of bandwidth than file transfers and users are less likely to complain about waiting.

Also do include a backup solution in your budget (a couple of extra HDs with a cron script running dd on a daily or weekly basis would be simplest).