stefanx,
Thanks - If I were to follow the Linux route per your suggestion which distro would be a good fit for the `novice`? Any downside to having all eggs in one Linux basket?
Any benefit to an appliance handling load balancing, VPN and firewall instead? One of my wants is to bond or aggregate bandwidth, that is, combine speeds of two or more disparate providers (something like BBNA at Mushroom Networks).
Main Topics
Browse All Topics





by: stefanxPosted on 2009-07-09 at 14:28:04ID: 24818543
If this were my Network, I'd hook up a somewhat beefy Linux machine to the two lines and the LAN and let it act as load balancer, firewall, proxy and all the other servers (ftp, mail, samba and VPN). I'd also get an offsite server to act as rsync server for the nightly backup - maybe a cheap VPS or an entry level Celeron dedicated server, or use the FTP space of a backup provider. Rsync is nicer because it is a real incremental backup - it will even transfer only the parts of files that have changed when backing up, something you don't get with FTP. On top of that I'd configure the Linux box with traffic analysis and shaping control to get a grip on the LAN PC's so that you can see exactly who is hogging the bandwidth and do something about it if it happens.
Of course, this all assumes that you are familiar enough with Linux to set it up, configure and maintain it, which, without meaning to sound patronising, doesn't quite seem to be your line if I look at your EE profile :(. I'm not a windows flag-burning zealot that thinks Linux is going to take over the world (at least not yet ;), but I cannot deny that, in my experience, it works as a really good stable solution in situations where you are cost sensitive and where the network does not have a Windows domain controller.
That's just my 2c worth, and make no mistake, the Linux learning curve to maintain this is typically not trivial, especially when things do go wrong. But it is what I would do, have done for quite a few clients and run at home myself.