Hi. I just remembers that i used to use SME Server for my Server computer, and i just thought, why am i using Windows Server 2003 over that? What benefits would i have using SME Server over Windows Server 2003? Can SME Server work with NTFS file system? i am Planning on formatting to a Linux partition for my server, but i need more storage first.
You should be asking what benefits does Linux have over Windows 2003. Samba is samba, linux is linux, there aren't many differences, if any.
Samba performs better and is more secure. SME is easier to administrate than 2003. 2003 is pricey; SME is free in both senses of the word. Apache with PHP out-of-the-box. Includes capabilities for routing, basic firewalling, and accellerated webcaching via Squid Proxy. Many ways to get to the same data including NTLM/SMB, SSH/SFTP, FTP, and AppleTalk. SME comes with capabilities for robust mail service including SMTP, IMAP, IMAPS, POP, POPS, SSH, PPTP, and secure webmail without needing expensive 3rd party software. Integrated anti-virus. Built-in spam filtering via Spamassasin. ...a better question might be, "what benefits does 2003 have over SME?"
Hmmm, how is that a better question? it seems like 2003 has no benefits... Can SME Server dual boot with windows, coz i like to use the server for downloading using azueruus coz it uses lots of resources that i just dont have on my main computer coz its used to other things like aol, opera and games.
It's a better question because it has a simpler answer, "2003 has no advantages over SME server" No, not easily. SME is designed to be treated like an embedded, stand-alone server OS, so your computer becomes more like an appliance than a PC with SME installed on it. It has no GUI capacity for setting up a multiboot environment, nor should it. So, what I'm saying is either run it or don't.
There are ways to install bittorrent software on SME server, but they are not for the novice Linux user. If you want a great server, SME is for you. If you want a server with a PC-like feel and a full-blown desktop environment, you might run something like CentOS. That said, CentOS will be substantially more difficult to get all the features I mentioned earlier working correctly than in SME (they're already setup on first boot in SME, in Cent though you'll need Linux knowledge to do the same things). But, you'd be able to run software like Azureus. My advice is just use SME and cut your losses. You should be able to run Azureus on your own PC just fine, and after mapping some network drives, you can even set Azureus to save the downloaded data straight on to your SME server.
i know that about downloading straight ot the server, just when using it on my main pc, it consumes like 60mb of ram, and my ram is allready at 75%, and when games are on, well, its not very nice at all.., but i suppose i can use my pentium 4 rig..
Willz you must use uTorrent. Azureus on Windows is extremely slow, don't bother with it. On Linux its not as bad, but I still use BitTornado in Linux. uTorrent, although only freeware, is only 160kb.
I really like how Azureus performs on Linux; I've never had a problem with it. But, I don't doubt that Windows has problems with it because Azureus is so IO intensive.
I thought Azureus was the best, like if you used another torrent client, you may not have as fast downloads?, thats the only reaosn i use Azureus, because i though that it gave you better speeds on torrents compared to what you would get on another client when you were downloading the same file.
Azureus has a lot of advanced features, and as such, you can potentially get more speed with it if you really know what you're doing. But it does need a lot of RAM to run properly.
i see, i think i need to get an extra 512mb, right now all i am running is, logitech software, x-fi software, opera (which is using 100mb of ram as i have got 32 tabs open) and aol 9, havent even got windowsblinds on yet. i will give uTorrent a try though.
