> Are there minimum CPU / controller / HD requirements for Samba to
I can't say for sure, but my guess is that the Samba processing may get
to be a bit much for the P100, especially when you have several people
hitting it at once. I'm going to confine the rest of my message to 100
mbit operation, trying to get full gigabit operation out of a Samba server
will take far more hardware power than you seem to want to throw at it.
There is no PIO33, but PIO modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. PIO modes use MUCH
more CPU than DMA modes, So the P100 may very well not be enough.
I've seen low-power machines used as succesfull file servers, when used
with good-quality SCSI disk systems. SCSI systems require next to no CPU
for disk I/O, leaving the CPU free for the Samba layer and networking.
It can, by keeping the most-used data in cache. If your disk system is
very slow and your CPU is very anemic, that can make a lot more difference
than if you have fast disks and powerful CPU's.
Chances are that it won't, especially not on a machine as old as a P100.
*If* you put a newer controller card in, then your chances are much
There are a lot of cheap NIC's that don't have much implemented in
hardware, and take more CPU than others. Using a higher-quality NIC would
probably be a good idea.
Despite the fact that more modern processers have reputations for being
power-hungry, that's not entirely true. The original Pentium line of
CPU's had a power dissipation of 10.1 to 15.5 watts, with your P100
probably falling around 11 to 11.5 watts. The Intel Celeron "II" (FC-PAG)
line (533 MHz to 766 MHz) had a power consumption range of... 11.2 to 23.6
watts. That means that you could have a 533 MHz Celeron (Coppermine core)
with on-die, full-speed cache and a lot more computing power for the same
electrical budget, which would not only give you much more CPU power,
you'd also get much more modern disk controllers on the motherboards in
question, easing several of your constraints. Plus, it just might have
better power-saving features as well!