Hi

I have a machine here which I want to become a server on my home lan. due to the location of the router in the house, I'd prefer to not put it next to that (or within cable run distance of that). Wireless came to mind as the obvious solution, but this is proving very frustrating, with no end of trouble in even properly operating the wireless card.

Reading on this forum I see many people having troubles with wireless, and wonder if this is perhaps an indication that I should stay with more 'traditional' lan solutions.

I'd like the box to be up most of the time, and be able to turn it on without keyboard or screen attached and have it just boot up and start providing services.

So, in your considered opinion is regular 10/100 a better choice?

Focus first one what the server will be serving. What type of data, and how large is it? How much bandwidth do you expect?

You could also consider homeplug ethernet.

Hi

the server will be used by me in getting more acquainted with Oracle 10g. I don't expect high bandwidth traffic into and out of the box. Internally is a different matter as I'm wanting to run a hypervisor and have one session talk to anothe session.

There is potential for using that box for other things in the future, but I can upgrade that as needed.

Also, right now, I don't have hundreds of dollars to just throw whilly nilly at the box. I'm just a self funded student trying to learn what's new and get to know it better too.


For example, so far I've not been able to get wireless lan to work nicely. I'm hoping that perhaps moving to something less complex will make it easier to automate.

Thanks

Unforatunately, wireless is one of those technologies where YMMV really holds true. You may have a wonderfully clear signal, with no trouble maintaining a long term connection, or you may find frequent network drops. it all depends on your neighborhood, appliances in use, number of walls, type of construction, distance from the AP, etc.

Your own experience will be your best guide. I personally wouldn't run a general server on wireless, because I expect it to run 24/7; your needs may differ. Certainly a cable run will provide much less headache over time.

Mr C

thanks for your input.

I guess that what I'm asking is can I set up a wireless to

1. from boot (without intervention) start up and associate with a pre-know SSID
2. use a static ip

all the other issues of wireless (as you mention above) I'm happy to struggle with, its just those two that I can't get sorted out at the moment because I've just never used Linux before 2 weeks ago (and you can find my headaches here)


thanks

Both of those are fine. You'll just need to have a startup script that configures the wireless for you. It's fairly standard stuff. Alternatively, get yourself another wireless router and use it as a bridge. (In my experience it's cheaper to get a router and custom firmware than an off the shelf wireless bridge.) I've got an Asus WL 500g running OpenWRT acting as a wireless bridge between two networks. It works great, and at the moment the uptime is over 4 months. As mentioned though, your mileage may (and probably will) vary.

Hi Beardy ...

sorry to sound silly, but I have no idea (being a windows person) where to start on that one. My system is RHEL4

I guess that I put something like:

into a script, but I just don't know which one and how to effect the static ip ...

thanks :-)

That depends what distro you are running. Is it RHat? I have not really had any problems running wireless on my laptop or desktop of course you have to get the correct drivers after that its a breeze.

Sorry just saw you were using RHEL4.

Check out Method #3: on this site it should help its for RHEL5 but they should be the same for 4 or similar.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/rhel-ce...configuration/

I'll suggest that wired networking is always better unless there is some particular reason not to use it (say, difficulty dragging the cables, need to get the network across a river). In contrast, wireless always seems to be a bit more testing to set up or keep working reliably.

That said, I doubt I'll ever put in any new 10 M ethernet again. Why would anyone want to put new 10 equipment in when there don't seem to be any disadvantages with 100?

OK, I realise that some would make the same case for 1000, but there is still equipment around with only 100 (still new equipment with no 1000 which is slightly shocking, not to mention 'legacy' equipment).