Home File Server Build. What OS/Software to use?

[coremortality]

Hi Everyone,

I'm in the process of researching and building a home file server and my biggest hang up is which OS/software combination to use. A bit of background regarding my technical abilities and my project:

Background:
I'm a network admin for a small organization (60+ users). It's exclusively a Microsoft environment. However, I'm not scared of CLIs or *nix systems as I've dabbled with Ubuntu and Debian as a home web server, though not longer than 2-3 months.

Project:
My home network has finally gotten to the point where I'm desperately in need of central storage. My wife and I had our first child last December and since then we have accumulated a number of pictures and home videos that are priceless to us (~25 GB and growing). We also have a large music collection (around 50-60 GB's) that I would also like to centralize. We currently have 4 computers: 2 laptops, 2 desktops. One laptop runs XP, the other machines all have Windows 7. Neither my wife nor I have a computer that is exclusively our primary machine. We use whatever machine is available. As such roaming profiles would be a plus, but central file storage, media streaming and data backup is the most important.

I’ve read a bit about WHS and it sounds intriguing and would allow me to run win compatible apps which is a plus (iTunes for Home Sharing). However, it seems to focus primarily data backup, which is great but I want a bit more for my money and installing client software on every machine isn’t ideal. Linux and Samba would allow for roaming profiles, folder redirection and centralized user accounts but it seems a tad overkill for my needs. I’m also a student and have access to Windows Server through MS DreamSpark but I don’t know if that might be too overkill as well. Any help, advice or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

-Eric

Cliff notes:
Need advice on os/software for home file server.
Network consists of 4 machines: 2 Desktops (Win7), 2 Laptops (Xp + Win7)
Primary Use: Picture, Video and Music storage
Data backup is critical
Media streaming a huge plus
Roaming profiles a plus
Not afraid to us *nix systems just not sure what would work best
WHS doesn’t seem like enough, Windows Server seems overkill

 

[Meghan54]

Still think WHS is the best option. I have it and it stores all my photos, video, etc. and is absolutely easy to use and quite inexpensive to top it off. Not very high in its resource/hardware requirements, either.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Linux hands down. It's free, flexible, and rock solid. As for which distro, I personally prefer CentOS or Fedora Core but try a few out before you commit to one.

Samba is extremely easy to setup as well, just check online for some tutorials.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

CentOS with Samba

 

[Modelworks]

freenas is my pick, handles several terabytes of image data very well.
http://www.freenas.org/

 

[theevilsharpie]

OpenFiler

 

[RebateMonger]

Windows Home Server makes an excellent file server. It's "infintely expandable" (if you consider 20+ Terabytes "infinite", anyway) and stores everything on a single "volume". Adding another storage disk takes a couple of mouse clicks.

The daily automated backups of Windows clients are excellent and allow easy restores of both data and entire systems. You can choose the restore point anywhere from yesterday to months ago. The backup client, in my experience, is small, intuitive, and trouble-free and allows the WHS server to warn you of problems with all of your PCs with backups, with your firewall, with your AV, or with the WHS Server itself.

No matter WHAT file server you choose, please consider how you will back up its data. Putting your only copy of valuable data on ANY single disk, server, or array is far from ideal. I recommend an independent backup system. Especially since it seems like your storage needs are not "huge", at least not at this point.

 

[JackMDS]

I’ve read a bit about WHS and it sounds intriguing and would allow me to run win compatible apps which is a plus (iTunes for Home Sharing). However, it seems to focus primarily data backup, which is great but I want a bit more for my money and installing client software on every machine isn’t ideal.

There is free add-ons that makes it a very good media server as well.

Can act as a web server too.

If you want to try Windows Home Server.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...265-9c5c-84fb6b2dadca&displaylang=en#Overview

 

[mshan]

Windows Home Server.

I've got an Acer Easystore H340 and love it; it's a very stylish little box and WHS is actually a surprising good operating system from Microsoft.

You can download a free trial version of WHS from the Microsoft website if you build your own rig.

 

[MStele]

WHS definetely. While the linux/apache alternatives are just as good in many ways (and free), WHS is many times more user friendly and has better redundancy features without having to resort to raid. That being said, the value is in the dollar. WHS sells for around $100 whereas linux sells for around $0. At that point its your call.

Personally its WHS ftw in regards to usability and features as well as a good out of box experience. Linux/apache is good but has no built in redundancy (must rely on raid/other software), and is in general not that user friendly.

 

[Nothinman]

Sadly WHS is hard to beat because of the automated backups and drive pooling stuff. If there was something similar to ZFS on Linux things would be different, but BTRFS is still a long ways off.

Although personally, I'd still go with Linux and XFS on software RAID and LVM. I don't want to deal with Windows unless absolutely necessary, especially at home.

While the linux/apache alternatives are just as good in many ways (and free),

You mean Samba, he wants a file server, not a web server.

WHS is many times more user friendly and has better redundancy features without having to resort to raid.

The drive pooling stuff is kinda cool and it simplifies redundancy, but at the expense of flexibility so I wouldn't say using RAID is "resorting" to it. Linux software RAID is infinitely more flexible than the drive pooling stuff in WHS and Windows software RAID. But yes, you do pay a price in the slightly more complicated setup.

 

[ZetaEpyon]

I don't really understand why you think that WHS isn't enough. It'll easily handle the tasks that you list as most important, and you could do the others with it without too much trouble as well. Don't forget that under the covers it's just Windows Server 2003.

 

[RebateMonger]

Sadly WHS is hard to beat because of the automated backups and drive pooling stuff. If there was something similar to ZFS on Linux things would be different, but BTRFS is still a long ways off.

Why "Sad"? Windows, Mac, and Linux all have their uses and their pros/cons. Although it still has its flaws, Microsoft hit a home run in the backup/storage area and it's super-easy to use. Even a first-time computer builder can build one in a couple of hours.

Doing backups and building large storage arrays just got a lot easier and cheaper. That's a good thing. Things are complicated enough in the PC world.

 

[Adul]

another one for home server.

 

[nerp]

Why "Sad"? Windows, Mac, and Linux all have their uses and their pros/cons. Although it still has its flaws, Microsoft hit a home run in the backup/storage area and it's super-easy to use. Even a first-time computer builder can build one in a couple of hours.

Doing backups and building large storage arrays just got a lot easier and cheaper. That's a good thing. Things are complicated enough in the PC world.

Yeah, why sad? If MS makes a great product that is the best of the breed, there's no reason to be sad.

Anyway, when is the next version of WHS coming out?

 

[Nothinman]

Why "Sad"?

Because currently there is no analogous solution on Linux and there's no way I'm running a WHS box at home just for that.

 

[VinDSL]

Because currently there is no analogous solution on Linux and there's no way I'm running a WHS box at home just for that.

I've got to get into this, one of these days. ^_^

As it is, I spread important stuff around my LAN - to various machines. Some of it gets uploaded to my web server in Atlanta (outside the web path). LoL! I have other things on encrypted USB thumb drives, CD's, HDDs in my closet. Hell, I even use Gmail for file storage!

It's amazing how UN-important files become after a few years, and I simply loose track of them...

How about Ubu One: https://one.ubuntu.com/ (Personal Cloud)

Anybody using it?

That seems to be the way of the future!

 

[MStele]

Sadly WHS is hard to beat because of the automated backups and drive pooling stuff. If there was something similar to ZFS on Linux things would be different, but BTRFS is still a long ways off.

Although personally, I'd still go with Linux and XFS on software RAID and LVM. I don't want to deal with Windows unless absolutely necessary, especially at home.



You mean Samba, he wants a file server, not a web server.



The drive pooling stuff is kinda cool and it simplifies redundancy, but at the expense of flexibility so I wouldn't say using RAID is "resorting" to it. Linux software RAID is infinitely more flexible than the drive pooling stuff in WHS and Windows software RAID. But yes, you do pay a price in the slightly more complicated setup.

You make a good arguement but there are some key points to be made. First, for the average user who isn't experienced in linux, it can be a nightmare. While it is true that distros like Ubuntu help bring the novices in, thats about as far as it goes. If your relying on automated package systems to install linux software, then you might as well be using Windows, because linux is unforgiving to people who aren't in the know. From your post you seem to be against microsoft, and I think thats fair. MS hasn't been overly popular in some circles, but we shouldn't automatically turn away out of spite, especially if something they produce is actually good.

I disagree about the raid, and this is why. Raid is an array, and thus is dependent on a common control point, whether it be a raid controller or software, in order to be operational. Now raid is an amazing thing. It has oodles of options and can be a very powerful tool, especially for someone who has money and the know how. But for the average joe, its simply too much. First, if you use a hardware option, you have to pair it with harddrives that have proper raid firmware, otherwise failure is much more likely down the road, and this can be very expensive. Second, whether it be software or hardware, if your raid controller fails, it is difficult to recover the array since rebuilding it is time consuming, and thats if you can even rebuild it, given that raid is very finiky and unless your running enough harddrives to keep a proper parity (or mirror), recovery becomes less likely. Leave raid to corporate IT departments and to individuals who have money and know how.

WHS on the other hand, requires none of this. It will take whatever drives you feed it and automatically integrate it. Not enough hard drives? Just add more. The software will automatically add them to the pool. Hardware changes are not easily done with raid. Since WHS supports USB drives, expandabiliy is great. And the best part? If you have a system failure, you can move the drives over to another system and recover the data no problem. This can't be done with raid, at least not easily.

So what it comes down to is my believe that simple is better. WHS is simple and it works. I guess in the long run the OP will just do what he thinks is best.

 

[Nothinman]

First, for the average user who isn't experienced in linux, it can be a nightmare.

The average user can't use Windows properly either, in either case they'll most likely end up screwing themselves over. Do you know how many SBS installs I've seen that were utter shit because the "IT admin" that set them up had no clue what he was doing and that's with the easy version of Windows with all of the automated wizards and stuff.

If your relying on automated package systems to install linux software, then you might as well be using Windows, because linux is unforgiving to people who aren't in the know.

Windows is just as unforgiving. The fact that MS had to write KB articles on how to use their "Windows installer cleaup tool" to remove MSI database information for things like Office to even get it to reinstall should be proof enough. Linux has it's issues, but IMO they're usually easier to debug and fix.

From your post you seem to be against microsoft, and I think thats fair. MS hasn't been overly popular in some circles, but we shouldn't automatically turn away out of spite, especially if something they produce is actually good.

I'm against them (and most commercial software makers) because their software sucks. I have to work on the stuff all of the time and it's terrible. All of the pretty packaging that makes people think it's easier is just an elaborate ruse that falls apart the second something doesn't go exactly as MS planned.

I disagree about the raid, and this is why. Raid is an array, and thus is dependent on a common control point, whether it be a raid controller or software, in order to be operational

Just like the storage pool stuff in WHS. There is some driver or service in WHS that controls all of that, there's no way around that.

Second, whether it be software or hardware, if your raid controller fails, it is difficult to recover the array since rebuilding it is time consuming, and thats if you can even rebuild it, given that raid is very finiky and unless your running enough harddrives to keep a proper parity (or mirror), recovery becomes less likely. Leave raid to corporate IT departments and to individuals who have money and know how.

Have you recovered data from a broken WHS drive pool? I know I haven't so I can't speak to how easier or not it is.

WHS on the other hand, requires none of this. It will take whatever drives you feed it and automatically integrate it. Not enough hard drives? Just add more. The software will automatically add them to the pool. Hardware changes are not easily done with raid.

I can easily hot-add drives to a virtually any RAID level in Linux and they don't require any special firmware to work either. A drive that magically falls out of an array because of a firmware bug is just that, buggy and it's the drive's fault, nothing more. If the drive can't handle the I/O it'll likely have problems with other types of operations as well.

f you have a system failure, you can move the drives over to another system and recover the data no problem. This can't be done with raid, at least not easily.

With Linux software RAID I can plug those drives into whatever system I want to recover them and the RAID driver will find them, even a removable port like USB. And generally the simpler option if the system is hosed is to just boot a Linux LiveCD and fix it from there.

So what it comes down to is my believe that simple is better. WHS is simple and it works. I guess in the long run the OP will just do what he thinks is best.

And if you read my first reply you'll see that I said that WHS is hard to beat right now. Hopefully someone will create a FUSE filesystem or something in the near future that will have similar functionality, but until then I personally will just live with the standard XFS+MD+LVM on Linux.

 

[RebateMonger]

Have you recovered data from a broken WHS drive pool? I know I haven't so I can't speak to how easier or not it is.

I've done recoveries with both a "broken" System disk and a "broken" data disk in WHS.

The good news is that the WHS does what it's supposed to. It'll give you back folders that have been set for redundancy and will rebuild itself if necessary. And, the "failed" disk can be read like any other Basic, NTFS disk (if it's readable at all).

The bad news is that it's far from perfect. Figuring out WHAT files you've lost could be a real challenge. Microsoft never has had a built-in utility for keeping a list of all the files located on a PC or server. So you probably don't know what's now missing. Especially since WHS' "Disk Extender" can put data on virtually any of the disks in your storage pool. It's one price you pay for the flexibility of the Disk Extender.

BTW, there may be a third-party tool available that can use the "tombstones" on the System disk to help determine what you've lost. I haven't looked that hard. Of course, that would only work if you haven't lost the System disk.

What it boils down to is:
No matter what kind of server you have and no matter what kind of redundant array or redundant folders you have, if the data is "important", you need independent backups.

 

[coremortality]

Thank you for all of the responses. Looks like I'm just going to have to setup and test a couple of systems to see which prefer.