[win2k]DHCP Server

[-I-]

try if you can, replace ntldr and ntdetect.com on your cdrom with versions of win2k3 (or xp). it might help you boot a few secs faster...

[cluberti]

sorry i should have been more clear about it, because my remark in the 512mem was not pointed toward you, but a remark about the folowing quote:

A P2 350 is slow, but I think the original poster is aware of this. However, 198MB of RAM is a relatively low amount of memory to have in an NT-based system (even NT4 worked better with 256MB of RAM, 10 years ago). Adding more RAM makes the system run faster (note that I didn't say BOOT faster) - applications will still be CPU-bound when loading up for the first time, or executing large amounts of code whilst running. But only having 198MB of RAM means that (even on a non-nLited W2K box) you only have about 120MB of RAM after you've logged in to the system, on a clean box. 40 - 50MB of RAM is taken immediately on boot by kernel nonpaged pool (and this pool can and will grow to 128MB of RAM if needed, on a 198MB box), and another 20 - 48MB of RAM is taken by desktop heap allocations (again, can't nLite this away either, as it's a kernel function). Do the math, and 198MB of RAM on an NT-based system is just not enough to use comfortably, and will affect system performance. You can reduce the footprint of the rest of the OS with nLite, but you still only have around 100 - 120MB of RAM available when you are finally able to start using the box after boot. Adding more memory gives the system some breathing room, and reduces the need for the Memory Manager to keep paging memory pages in and out to keep RAM available for the kernel nonpaged pool (again, up to 128MB needs to be available at all times in physical RAM for this pool).

Note that I did say "The 350MHz processor doesn't help" . I was being dry, even somewhat sarcastic. But I still stand by my statement that the RAM is the bottleneck in almost all systems with 256MB of RAM or less - the kernel and running services can consume up to 100MB of RAM on their own, before the user's applications even get launched. I suggest reading the Windows Internals (4th Edition) book if you really want to know how the Windows kernel works.

Edited December 5, 2005 by cluberti

[-I-]

you posted exactly to where i disagrea, because, im telling that, without a faster cpu, the extra ram wont be use suffisiently (will most likely be spilled).

Yes, - 256 would be better (probebly another, 64mb would help a slight bit more but thats where i'd draw the line to max. - any ram more would be completely useless because, the CPU will be the new bottleneck..

512 like stated would maen just wasting about 150megs of (realy expansive) equipment,

(note: SDram prices went way up since theres no longer real support for them).

get your cpu to 1ghz and 512ram would be great ,

get your cpu to about 2.5 and 1gb of ram would make your poiter would fly through your screen at mach II, (lol just kidding),

[cluberti]

It's fine if you disagree - it's one of the things that makes the world go 'round .

However, I do have some credentials that let me make the claim that more RAM makes almost any system faster, and at least have some credibility.

[BigDaddy]

If you are asking whether or not you can set up a DHCP server on a Windows 2000 Professional machine, yes. However, it will not be from Microsoft - you will have to use a 3rd party DHCP server product, such as Vicomsoft DHCP server or Incognito IP Commander.

Which of these to is more lighweight?

Are there any alternatives than these 2 programs? Since I would only need to connect 1additional computer to this one.

btw. I know I could set up a static ip for the client machine, but I want it to auto get IP

[cluberti]

Vicomsoft's DHCP product is more lightweight, but if you're going to spend money you may be better served purchasing a cheap Netgear or Linksys broadband router (for about the same price, or less, than the products I stated), as it will provide DHCP services and some firewall security for your network.

Edit: I can't spell.

Edited December 9, 2005 by cluberti

[BigDaddy]

so there arent no other alternatives than these two perhaps a free one?

[BigDaddy]

*bump*

[BigDaddy]

Tried VICOMSOFT DHCP server. It works as it should. But the problem is memory footprint.

Just the DHCP SERVER SERVICE uses about 20MB RAM and 19MB of VIRTUAL MEMORY. I already emailed VICOMSOFT for this huge memory footprint but as usual they have not replied.

DOes any1 know if theres a way to decrease the memory footprint?

ps. As for problems I've mentione in post No. 3#

The machine is working fine now. It was so slugish because both NIC cards were set to automaticly determine speed. And now I've set them manually to 100MB/s FULL DUPLEX and the sistem is very responsive now.

Any1 know why this would make the sistem so slugish?

Edited December 18, 2005 by BigDaddy

[cluberti]

ps. As for problems I've mentione in post No. 3#

The machine is working fine now. It was so slugish because both NIC cards were set to automaticly determine speed. And now I've set them manually to 100MB/s FULL DUPLEX and the sistem is very responsive now.

Any1 know why this would make the sistem so slugish?

Any time the NIC has to negotiate speed and duplex, the traffic along the line stops until negotiation is finished. If the network hardware that your NIC is attached to is not feeding the NIC proper negotiation data (less likely), or if the NIC driver itself (more likely) has trouble doing auto-negotiation of speed and duplex, you will see a speed penalty until the problem is resolved (either a driver update or forcing speed and duplex).

ALL traffic along the wire stops during negotiation, and if there is a problem with autonegotiation, this "negotiation handshake" can happen quite often (slowing things down considerably).