I have two machines connected to DSL via a router (i.e. different IPs, but sharing the same bandwidth). One is an older PC (900MHz, running Win2003), and the other (my main workstation) is running at 1.8GHz, and Win2000.

What would be the better setup, performance-wise, if I want to run an LfS-Server?

Put the dedicated server software on the slower machine, and then play from my main PC, or just run a regular server on the same machine I play on?

I guess I could spread the workload somewhat with LfS running on two different machines, but what about the bandwidth? Will they end up 'fighting' for bandwidth among each other? (My connection speed is about 1200/600 kpbs.)

You're running Win2003 on a 900MHz machine. Sorry, but thats just foolish, especially if its the server edition with shadow volume copy enabled. Doubly so if you're running it an Active Directory Domain Controller. Its going to be hideously slow, surely. If you're not running it as that, then whats the point? You might as well be using XP..

Performance wise, its always better to put the server on a machine which isnt running the main LFS client, as it will slow down the LFS client. The dedicated server itself doesnt use much processing power, but if your main workstation is 1.8GHz you may well notice the difference.

With regards to bandwidth, it depends exactly how your router/network is setup, whether its got QoS (Quality of Service) with Load Balancing. If its not got it, then yes they will just 'fight'.

Sorry if this post sounds a little harsh/a bit of a rant, but I'm having a crap-ish day and I suppose its reflecting in my posts by now

If you've not fiddled with your network too much, the best option (I think) is to disable QoS (I do this anyway), put the dedi server on the slower pc and the client on the faster.

I've got to agree that disabling QoS is usually a good idea on home networks, as it does add an extra overhead and features (such as failover) that most home users dont need. Its almost always worth uninstalling on all windows machines individual network adapter's. But if you really want to run a full time server then its a good idea to look into your router's QoS options, if you're thinking about running the server close to your line's capacity. Otherwise you may find that the rest of your line becomes unusable.

I've got to agree with NotAnIllusion, if you're unsure, just run the LFS dedi on the other machine with minimum or no changes, and make sure that the appropriate ports are opened in your firewall rules. If you get problems, just kill the server and go back to square one

Quote from the_angry_angel :

You're running Win2003 on a 900MHz machine. Sorry, but thats just foolish, especially if its the server edition with shadow volume copy enabled. Doubly so if you're running it an Active Directory Domain Controller. Its going to be hideously slow, surely. If you're not running it as that, then whats the point? You might as well be using XP..

Actually, it's running just fine.
It is used as a test server for web-development, and it's doing a pretty good job at that...
(And no, I cannot run XP, as certain web-services require Win2003.)

But thanks for the rest of your (and NotAnIllusion's) advice. I'll try to put the dedicated server on the slower machine, and see what happens.

Whoops-a-daisy, just a quick correction.. disabling QoS of course isn't the best way to get rid of the overheads it causes. If QoS is no manually set to 0% in the regisrty (or w/e it was, can't remember just now), it will still take the default 20% OH when disabled. Prolly handy if I dig that reg tweak from somewhere.. lol

*edit: ah bugger, just do it like so
http://support.earthlink.net/m ... /windows_XP/6800.psc.html

900 MHz is fine for Win 2003 if your not in a business environment, as long as there is enough RAM.

I run Win 2003 on a 650 Mhz Celeron and it runs fine and it is a domain controller.

Just thought I'd add that even though its nothing to do with LFS

Thats useful to know (I'm sure I'll need to know that one day). I'm surprised it doesnt fall over completely, but that said, I've never deployed it on such a low powered machine