Building a file server, wanting to use linux, but am kinda new at it.

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
I am building a file server which will sit at my desk along with my main rig. I am strongly considering using linux, but am kinda new at it. Although I have played with it before. Just wondering a few things. Like how well do linux and windows play together? I mean I currently use NTFS as my file system, will that be okay going between the 2 OS's? Does linux have a remote app, for controlling the file server from my main rig? What else do i need to know, any good sites about this info?

I also have a copy of windows 2003 SBE, which i also considered using, but i think I would prefer to play with linux first.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Well. Linux can't read/write NTFS much at all and Window's doesn't support ext3. There are ways around it, of course. The easiest is to have a fat32 partition to share things between them.

This only matters when your trying to access the partitions directly from either OS. When accessing file shares over a network then you'd use SAMBA file sharing from Linux and that is compatable with 'Microsoft File and print sharing' just the same (well, aside from the setup) as if your serving out from a Windows box. All the differences between the OSes (such as permissions and whatnot) are handled transparently. No problem.

If you want to try out Linux with no worries then you can try Knoppix. It's a 'live linux cdrom', which means that you boot up into the cdrom and run the OS directly from it. You don't have to install it onto your harddrive in order to use it. (although you can).

Open up a Xterm on that and mess around with the command line a bit so that you can get confortable with how it works.

Linux and Windows, to the end user, differ quite a bit and many things are quite unusual if your used to how Windows does things.

For instance Knoppix is a Debian-based distro. Similar to Ubuntu or Debian itself. The major difference is that it's a live cd and Knoppix runs a KDE desktop were Ubuntu runs a Gnome desktop and Debian supports both. Software installs are taken care of through a package manager and online package repositories which the package management system (in Debian's case 'apt-get') will access directly itself and download and install software for you rather then you visiting the program's homepage and downloading a generic installer program like you do with Windows.

Keep in mind if you don't want to use a general-purpose distro to setup you box there are things like 'clarkconnect' which is a specific-purpose distro designed along the lines of a 'Network appliance' were you access administrative stuff through your browser on your windows desktop and whatnot. Some people find that easier. I personally prefer to use a general purpose distro and setup the specifics myself.

 

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
I already have used linux before. I am not a pro at it, but I have used it before.
 

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
Okay, so how hard would it be, for a relative linux newb like myself, to setup a linux file server using samba? As I said in my last post, I have experimented with Ubuntu, FreeBSD(not technically linux), Suse, Xandros, Knoppix, and maybe a few other distros before. So I have a little knowledge of how to use linux. But I don't have much if any technical or command line type of knowledge.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: coolred
Okay, so how hard would it be, for a relative linux newb like myself, to setup a linux file server using samba? As I said in my last post, I have experimented with Ubuntu, FreeBSD(not technically linux), Suse, Xandros, Knoppix, and maybe a few other distros before. So I have a little knowledge of how to use linux. But I don't have much if any technical or command line type of knowledge.

I played with a few Linux distros over the years but never stuck with them. Got them installed and said, 'cool, now what?', and always reloaded them with Windows.

About 6 weeks ago I loaded Fedora Core 4 on my laptop. Then I loaded Ubuntu on it. This time I stuck with Linux and I'm pretty happy.

Two days ago I blew away my Win2003 Server and loaded Fedora Core 4 as a 'server' (storage location) for my Ubuntu laptop and WinXP Pro desktop. The install was a breeze - I should mention that all of my hardware was supported out of the box. It took a little bit of reading and trial and error but I managed to get my FC4 shares viewable by my Ubuntu laptop and XP Pro desktop. The funny thing is, the Ubuntu part was the difficult one. With my XP box all I had to do is configure Samba then //hostname/share and enter my username/password. With Ubuntu I used a mount command. Here's how I mounted mine:

sudo mount -t nfs ip_address_of_myserver:/target_share_on_server /mount_point_on_ubuntu_laptop (note all of the spaces - they don't display well here)

If I can do it, you can do it! :D
 

timswim78

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2003
4,330
1
81
I would reccomend Fedora Core 4 as a file server. It has a graphical interface for Samba that makes setting up a file server a breeze.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: timswim78
I would reccomend Fedora Core 4 as a file server. It has a graphical interface for Samba that makes setting up a file server a breeze.

I would second that!
 

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
I am still wondering if a linux newb like myself can make this work. I have downloaded fedora core 4, is it the only one with a graphical samba interface?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
A graphical Samba interface is largely pointless. Samba itself comes with SWAT (although it's packaged seperately in some distros) which is a web interface to configure Samba and editing smb.conf by hand isn't particularly hard. And it's a good idea to run testparm from the cli to make sure smb.conf looks valid before using it anyway.
 

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
Yeah so that may sound easy to you, but it seems pretty daunting to me. What about remote access apps for linux, do they have anything good? I would be going from a windows machine into the linux box.


I really want to mess around and learn with linux, but I don't want to be messing my files up as I do.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
It's a different method, but it's not difficult and the base smb.conf provided with Samba is commented pretty well. If you plan on using Linux you'll have to get comfortable with the cli and editing text files anyway, so why not start off right?

As for remote admin, ssh is the most common method. Get a copy of PuTTy.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: coolred
How do I get a copy of PuTTy, do I get that through Yum?

No, PuTTy is a windows app. Everything you need is already installed in linux.
 

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
So where should I go for my intro to linux lessons. I got several hard drives in this computer, many with data on them already, is that data gonna be accessible or is linux gonna require to me to reformat the drives? What about drive order, linux does it differantly rather then C: it says something like sda or something doesn't it. I need to read up on this stuff.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Check out links in my sig. Especially the tldp.org links. There are hands on guide and system administrator's guide that should answer almost all your questions.

Linux/Unix systems use a directory tree system. The lowest level is / which is 'root'. The root of the tree.

The system is abstracted in such a way that you don't realy have to know much (as a end user) about what sort of physical volumes are being used. Everything is part of the directory tree and different file systems get mounted to different mount points.

A mount point is basicly a directory, usually a empty one.

For instance I can have a partition mounted at root. Then I have several directories on root like /boot, /home, /etc, /var, /tmp.

Now I can have everything on root if I feel like it. But I like to have /home a seperate partition so that I can reformat the OS on the root partition, but not bother any of my user's files or preferences (which are all stored almost exclusively in that paticular user's home directory)

I can also have remote directories be mounted in this fasion also. They don't even have to be real file systems... For instance on most systems /dev/, /proc/, /sys/ and maybe others don't realy exist outside of your RAM.

A nice thing to do is often to run nfs or similar item and do remote /home directories. That way you can share out files over the network and have all a person's preferences for all their programs be equally aviable on whatever machine they happen to long into. As long as your network is fast, well designed, and reliable this can work out very well.

Generally I like to just have seperate /, /boot, and /home partitions and that's it. The 4th partition would be a swap partition.


The thing about the 'sda' thing is that in Linux/Unix almost everything is a file. Directories are files, files are files, /proc/cpuinfo is a dynamicly created files by the kernel, etc etc.

Well in your /dev/ directory these are special files to represent hardware and other resources.

For instance you have /dev/input/ directory that holds the output from your usb input stuff. (mice, keyboards, etc). If a program wants to interact with your mouse, they read from that file and get the data your generating from keypresses and movement or whatever.

You can usually see this for yourself if you use the program hexdump (you could use cat, but it can corrupt your terminal)
hexdump /dev/input/mice

Then move your mouse around. You may have to do it as root or lead it with the sudo command.

You have other files their for your tv capture cards, your sound cards, and also your harddrives, dvdroms and such.

If your using a traditional PATA ide controller this is how the device naming goes:
/dev/hda = primary master
/dev/hdb = primary slave
/dev/hdc = secondary master
/dev/hdd = secondary slave

Then any more controllers or whatnot will end up as /dev/hde /dev/hdf /dev/hdg etc etc.

SCSI drives will show up as /dev/sda /dev/sdb etc etc. Some SATA controllers when they use older fasion drivers will show up as hd* items, but mostly now they'd show up as scsi devices since they share the same subsystems in the kernel now.

Partitions show up as numbers added onto the drive's /dev/ file.

Like /dev/hdb3 would be the third partition on the primary slave IDE device. (although obviously on sata stuff the slave master relationship is not applicable anymore)



So say if you have some spare space on a harddrive that is unpartitioned or unformated you'd go like this:

cfdisk /dev/hda
(this will help you make a new partition.. lets say it's /dev/hda3)
mkfs.ext3 /dev/hda3
(this will format the new partition as ext3 file system, which is pretty much standard FS nowadays, although there are several to choose from)
mkdir /mnt/newpart
(to make a new directory)
mount /dev/hda3 /mnt/newpart

Then you will be able to move files and such to the new partition you just setup and formatted.

if you want to make it mount automaticly after you reboot, or allow users to mount it for whatever reason then you have to add information to the /etc/fstab file, which is the file that the OS uses to determine were to mount what were.

And it's not just harddrives, but usb mass storage devices (such as certain digital cameras, some mp3 players, or cf or sd cards plugged into a card readers via usb), data cdroms, data dvds, and floppies are accessed in a similar manner.

For instance if you ever wanted to make a iso image of a data cdrom in Linux you'd go:
dd if=/dev/cdrom of=mynew.iso

That would make a iso copy of the cdrom, you can then burn that to a blank cd and make a physical copy.

The cdrom will realy be a /dev/hda or a /dev/sda file since it's a IDE or SCSI device (usually), but it's customary for a installer to make a symbolic link (like a shortcut) from /dev/cdrom to /dev/whatever to make it easy for the end user.

So that's quite a bit different from the C: drive and the D: drive in Windows. I think it's superior in a number of ways, of course.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: coolred
How do I get a copy of PuTTy, do I get that through Yum?

No, PuTTy is a windows app. Everything you need is already installed in linux.

Well actually there is a version of putty for linux. Some people like that thing (it can hold all sorts of extra preferences for accessing lots of different things other then just ssh). But for ssh it's definately easier to just open up a terminal and go:
ssh username@remote.computer.whatever
 

coolred

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,911
0
0
I don't know if I am ready for linux on an important system like this. I am thinking maybe I should opt instead for my copy of windows small business server 2003 PE, and then maybe dual boot linux to tinker with.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,686
5,808
146
Don't worry too much about it. I suggest that you use a smaller disk as a boot disk, and build a functional fileserver. Get samba3 installed, configured to start, and bring your smb.conf file here if you need to.
Later on, you can add more disks to it and begin to use it. I would not dual boot it for the simple reason that you will learn zip while it is booted into another OS.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Is webmin installed on the samba server or is it something that would be installed on a client accessing the server? If so, will it work in Fedora Core 4?
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,686
5,808
146
My understanding of webmin:
It depends on apache, and runs on the machine that you wish to administer.
It give the user a friendly "webpage" for configuring the computer, in addition to the CLI.
I have never used it personally.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
It doesn't depend on apache, but otherwise skyking is right. It's a webserver that has a bunch of modules that allow you to configure different aspects of the box that webmin is running on.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Cool... I'm going to give that a try on my Fedora Core 4 box tonight. Thanks! :D