Which OS should I use for a simple file server?

[Nothinman]

Being a Debian fanboi, I'm surprised you missed this one:

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/28371/1090/ (iTWire | Next Debian release with FreeBSD kernel as well )

I'm still subscribed to a handful of Debian mailing lists but haven't had the time to keep up. The Debian Hurd, FreeBSD and NetBSD ports have been in the works for a while now but I didn't know one of them was up to release quality. If the Debian packages and ZFS work well enough in that release I might consider it for a file server. I'd rather stick with Linux because I'm used to the way things like kernel modules are handled, but if it's transparent enough I might bite.

 

[BurnItDwn]

If you're just thinking of a small home server, then Linux is probably the lowest maintenance, and relatively easy to set up.

Samba is a piece of cake if you use SWAT, or it's a not too hard to just modify the cfg files. (SWAT is a web tool for editing your samba configuration)
I've got an old Dell server that I bought back when the 120GB hard drives first came out running my home file server (also have a small ventrillo server running, and in the past, used it as a router, and have hosted games, database, and web on it before too)

I run slackware, but that's just because it's what I learned with ....

Linux is great as long as
1,) figure out exactly what you want to backup and how you want to plan it ... Stuff like tape drives, etc ... pretty much are all supported in Linux, but if you want to use some other method, make sure you have an idea how you wanna do it before you decide.
2.) does your server need wireless access? I've gotten wireless working on some machines, but not all. If you want wireless, check to see if whatever wireless hardware you plan to use is easily set up in Linux
3.) What kinda hardware are you running on your server? Chances are this is probably a moot point, as you can pretty much run a 486 with 64mb of ram and have a file server .... though if you want to install X and all kindo of other crap, and you want a "fancy" distribution like Ubuntu or something ... you'll probably want at least 1GB of ram and a P4. (my server has only 384mb of ram, one reason why I'm sticking with Slack)

That said ... I'd also consider OpenBSD, but maybe only because I'm a bit masochistic at times.

Also, Windows should also make for an acceptible server... however, you might need to hook a monitor/keyboard/mouse up to it every now and again ... and it may take a bit more maintenance .... (still should not be too big a PITA though) ....

I don't see there really being too many "bad" options here ....

 

[Homerboy]

WHS is the way to go. This isn't even an argument.

 

[Genx87]

I have been running the server flavors at home for years. First it was Windows 2003 until about 12 months ago, now it is Windows 08 R2.

I prefer the ease of AD over having to setup local user names and trying to keep things in sync. I also play with Hyper V. But I was debating playing with Storage 08 as a NAS and SAN.

Edit: Can WHS be joined to a domain?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: Can WHS be joined to a domain?

No. Well, maybe it can, but that's specifically banned in the EULA, as I recall.

Truthfully, I prefer if off the Domain, for security reasons. The WHS server is, with the exception of my Domain Controller, the most important PC on the network.

Because WHS is not on the Domain, nobody from the Domain can access the backup database or Management Console. Those require the WHS Administrator account for access.. Finally, WHS, by default, requires a pretty strong password for the Administrator account. So the odds of worms getting into your WHS and damaging the backups is pretty low as far as I can see. You could lose your entire network to malware and the WHS backups of all your PCs would still be intact.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
I haven't heard of anyone who's unhappy with WHS.

Now you have. I've tried it, but wasn't impressed by it. I preferred Vista/2008 for performance and didn't really like the WHS integration/interaction with the underlying OS. I might reconsider WHS when it migrates to the W7 platform, but would probably re-investigate Linux (ideally with Samba 4) or ZFS first.

Well, it may be like Anton Chigur (Javier Bardem) says in "No Country For Old Men:" "You should only choose the one best tool." [Don't worry, I won't shoot you.]

Without regard to cost, someone else could debate whether the 2003 Server software would make more sense, or the 2008. Maybe even the Small Business Server (I'm vague on the various flavors). At one time, I had Win 2000 Advanced Server installed -- a complimentary disc distributed to participants in the MS MCSE seminars. The friend who gave it to me had obtained a "crack" to make it indefinitely fully operational. But it was more than I needed, and now -- obsolete.

I don't see why someone would pick a VISTA installation, though, even if the performance is "better." That's no different than my using Windows 2000 Pro as the OS on my home server (which I did). But the automatic features are left to backups scheduled at the client end. That is, why use VISTA when you can get WHS for less than $100?

 

[Nothinman]

That said ... I'd also consider OpenBSD, but maybe only because I'm a bit masochistic at times.

Masochistic is one word for it. OpenBSD's pf makes a good firewall, but it's got some of the worst disk speeds of any OS I've ever seen and the package management sucks compared to just about any Linux distribution so using it for a file server seems like a really bad idea IMO.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

That said ... I'd also consider OpenBSD, but maybe only because I'm a bit masochistic at times.

Masochistic is one word for it. OpenBSD's pf makes a good firewall, but it's got some of the worst disk speeds of any OS I've ever seen and the package management sucks compared to just about any Linux distribution so using it for a file server seems like a really bad idea IMO.

I haven't had any problems with it.

When was the last time you used the package management system? It beats the hell out of anything I've seen on any other system.

EDIT: AND I get stickers every 6 months.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

but would probably re-investigate Linux (ideally with Samba 4) or ZFS first.

ZFS seems like a good idea, but since the license isn't GPL compatible it'll never be in Linux so I'll most likely never use it. I'm fine with XFS+md+lvm and BTRFS once it's stable.

Have a look at DragonFly BSD's HAMMER. It seems decent.

 

[Nothinman]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I haven't had any problems with it.

When was the last time you used the package management system? It beats the hell out of anything I've seen on any other system.

Really? Does it have a frontend like aptitude or synaptic that I can browse available and new packages? Does it remember which packages were installed automatically as dependencies so that they get cleaned up when nothing else depends on them? Is there something like apt-listbugs so that I get a warning about open bugs in packages I'm about to install/upgrade?

Have a look at DragonFly BSD's HAMMER. It seems decent.

It's still pretty beta, isn't it?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I haven't had any problems with it.

When was the last time you used the package management system? It beats the hell out of anything I've seen on any other system.

Really? Does it have a frontend like aptitude or synaptic that I can browse available and new packages? Does it remember which packages were installed automatically as dependencies so that they get cleaned up when nothing else depends on them? Is there something like apt-listbugs so that I get a warning about open bugs in packages I'm about to install/upgrade?

This is unix son, the shell is the front end.
http://openports.se is decent. There's a portssql or something package that creates a backend that you can create a front end for.

It does not (currently, but there's a LOT of work going on right now) track/remove dependencies with no dependents. pkg_info -t gives you all packages w/no dependents though.

How does apt-listbugs track all of the bugs in their thousands of packages? How does it tie into the bugs databases of each and every project?

Have a look at DragonFly BSD's HAMMER. It seems decent.

It's still pretty beta, isn't it?

Isn't btrfs alpha? I think hammer is considered "production ready" now. It is still very young, and not even close to feature complete. Performance needs a bit of work for some workloads (postgresql performance was lower than I expected). It is also not fully ported to linux yet, but I believe work is being done on that.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

but would probably re-investigate Linux (ideally with Samba 4) or ZFS first.

ZFS seems like a good idea, but since the license isn't GPL compatible it'll never be in Linux so I'll most likely never use it. I'm fine with XFS+md+lvm and BTRFS once it's stable.

opensuse 11.2 is apparently going to have BtrFS support. Dunno how stable it will be though.

link

 

[Nothinman]

This is unix son, the shell is the front end.

Thank god this isn't unix. I'm all about the shell, but there's no way you can beat aptitude with plain bash.

It does not (currently, but there's a LOT of work going on right now) track/remove dependencies with no dependents. pkg_info -t gives you all packages w/no dependents though.

That's another reason why aptitude is better, while browsing packages and marking some for removal it'll automatically mark automatically installed packages with no dependencies left for removal and I get to see the final list of add/removes before committing.

How does apt-listbugs track all of the bugs in their thousands of packages? How does it tie into the bugs databases of each and every project?

No, it just ties into bugs.debian.org.

Isn't btrfs alpha

Yes, which is why I said "once it's stable".

I think hammer is considered "production ready" now. It is still very young, and not even close to feature complete.

Then it's not production ready. Eventually one of those features is going to require an on-disk format change.

opensuse 11.2 is apparently going to have BtrFS support. Dunno how stable it will be though.

That's pretty dumb on their part. I just saw a discussion on the btrfs mailing list about how the only way to fix the number of maximum hard links is with an on-disk format change.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

opensuse 11.2 is apparently going to have BtrFS support. Dunno how stable it will be though.

That's pretty dumb on their part. I just saw a discussion on the btrfs mailing list about how the only way to fix the number of maximum hard links is with an on-disk format change.

Yeah, I expect there will be big flashy warnings about stability in the yast partitioner.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

This is unix son, the shell is the front end.

Thank god this isn't unix. I'm all about the shell, but there's no way you can beat aptitude with plain bash.

I'm not using bash, so that's not an argument I'll take up.

That's another reason why aptitude is better, while browsing packages and marking some for removal it'll automatically mark automatically installed packages with no dependencies left for removal and I get to see the final list of add/removes before committing.

That's something I don't want software to do for me. If I want something uninstalled I'll uninstall it. The OpenBSD community seems to agree on that (so far).

No, it just ties into bugs.debian.org.

So bugs have to be reported twice? Once at the software's bug tracking system then again on Debian's? (and again on Ubuntu's, and Fedora's, and Suse's, and Gentoo's...)

Then it's not production ready. Eventually one of those features is going to require an on-disk format change.

Wouldn't be the first time. I think most (all?) of the planned features that aren't implemented yet revolve around the clustering. It's production enough that the current version defaults to hammer.
I have doubts as to whether dfly itself is entirely production ready. The dev team (while highly skilled and dedicated) is VERY small, as is the user base. Their reliance on pkgsrc (a project that seems to pretty much focus on NetBSD) is also a detractor in my opinion.

Overall, I think the system could make an amazing backup/file server. FS snapshots and (remote machine) mirroring could be absolutely amazing for these functions.

Unfortunately Dfly kept the worst parts of FreeBSD, so I haven't been too serious about trying it.

That's pretty dumb on their part. I just saw a discussion on the btrfs mailing list about how the only way to fix the number of maximum hard links is with an on-disk format change.

It is opensuse. Isn't that like Fedora for Redhat? Isn't that where all of the unstable crap gets thrown into a system for beta testers to fix up for the company to later make a buck off of it?

 

[Nothinman]

I'm not using bash, so that's not an argument I'll take up.

I figured you'd say that, but the specific shell in use isn't relevant.

That's something I don't want software to do for me. If I want something uninstalled I'll uninstall it. The OpenBSD community seems to agree on that (so far).

And I agree, but why should I be bothered to keep track of all of the support libraries for that which I'm uninstalling? If I'm uninstalling ntop why should I have to care that it needed librrd4? If nothing else is using librrd4 then I want it removed at the same time.

So bugs have to be reported twice? Once at the software's bug tracking system then again on Debian's? (and again on Ubuntu's, and Fedora's, and Suse's, and Gentoo's...)

Of course, not all bugs are relevant to upstream so Debian, FC, etc all keep their own bug tracking systems. It's the package maintainer's responsibility to work with upstream and figure out which bugs are specific to the Debian package and which are upstream bugs. And then since no new releases make it into a Debian stable release the package maintainer needs to track which bugs are relevant to stable, testing and unstable.

Yes it's a big of duplicated work, but it's impossible to avoid.

Overall, I think the system could make an amazing backup/file server. FS snapshots and (remote machine) mirroring could be absolutely amazing for these functions.

I've got fs snapshots and remote machine mirroring (via iSCSI or nbd) now with any filesystem in Linux.

It is opensuse. Isn't that like Fedora for Redhat? Isn't that where all of the unstable crap gets thrown into a system for beta testers to fix up for the company to later make a buck off of it?

Yea, but the last thing you want to put in the face of users is an alpha filesystem. Alpha version of Xorg, Gnome, mutt, etc may be annoying while they crash but they won't generally eat your data while they do it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And I agree, but why should I be bothered to keep track of all of the support libraries for that which I'm uninstalling? If I'm uninstalling ntop why should I have to care that it needed librrd4? If nothing else is using librrd4 then I want it removed at the same time.

I rarely uninstall packages. I've got big disks.

I go through every once in a while and look at the non-dependencies and clean up what I'm no longer using. It takes a couple of runs, but it is still quick and easy. Looks like there's some major work going on in the OpenBSD package system right now though, so I'll have no idea what capabilities will be available next week.

I've got fs snapshots and remote machine mirroring (via iSCSI or nbd) now with any filesystem in Linux.

I'll have to look at that. Thanks.

Yea, but the last thing you want to put in the face of users is an alpha filesystem. Alpha version of Xorg, Gnome, mutt, etc may be annoying while they crash but they won't generally eat your data while they do it.

That's why you don't make it default and toss in a warning. Anyone that uses it will either be helpful or probably deserves to lose all of his data.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: Can WHS be joined to a domain?

No. Well, maybe it can, but that's specifically banned in the EULA, as I recall.

Truthfully, I prefer if off the Domain, for security reasons. The WHS server is, with the exception of my Domain Controller, the most important PC on the network.

Because WHS is not on the Domain, nobody from the Domain can access the backup database or Management Console. Those require the WHS Administrator account for access.. Finally, WHS, by default, requires a pretty strong password for the Administrator account. So the odds of worms getting into your WHS and damaging the backups is pretty low as far as I can see. You could lose your entire network to malware and the WHS backups of all your PCs would still be intact.

Well the domain consists or my wife and I And of course the domain admin account. Neither of us have domain admin rights nor admind rights on our local machines though we do have access to shared folders.

Anyways I was more interested in WHS's media extenders that work with the PS3 than with backups or the other functionality within that OS. My backup routine currently consists of a 1TB SATA drive that gets a monthly backup and then put in a firepoof safe hehe.