Which OS should I use for a simple file server?

[GodlessAstronomer]

I'm planning on building a new gaming system and using my current PC as a simple file server. Basically it will be used to host media and make daily backups. It will mostly be accessed on a gigabit network by my Windows 7 desktop PC and Windows 7 laptop.

I'm comfortable using either Windows or Linux operating systems. I have access to the following OS's through my school:
Windows Vista x86 Business
Windows Vista x64 Business
Windows Server 2008 Enterprise & Standard
Windows XP Pro

plus 2 Windows 7 licenses but I'm using them on other PCs. Obviously I can use any Linux distro, I'm most familiar with Ubuntu and Fedora but I'm not fussed.

Any ideas? Anyone used a Linux file server with Windows clients? Is it a hassle? I'd like to be able to remotely administer this box too. Also power consumption and reliability are important as this machine will be on pretty much all of the time. Thanks.

 

[RebateMonger]

Take a look at Windows Home Server. The software is $100 (about the price of Vista or W7) and you get a server that handles web hosting, remote access, file serving, and automated image backups of ten Windows PCs. The commercial WHS servers are built on Celeron or Atom low-power CPUs.

It's easy to install and manage, requires very little CPU power or memory (1GHz CPU and 500 MB memory are fine), offers folder-level disk redundancy, and is "infinitely" expandable, one disk at a time. Well, maybe not infinitely expandable, but there have been 20-Terabyte-plus WHS servers reported.

No, none of the OSes you mention have the same features as WHS. In particular, the automated image backups, folder-level redundancy, and simple disk expandability are unique to WHS in the Windows lineup.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Heh-heh. I can't add anything to that.

I'd been tapping RebateMonger for advice about a second-defense backup solution to WHS, while discovering along the way that there are all these marvelous add-ins and tools available for it.

I may never utilize WHS to its full potential. My main workstatiion has a RAID5, and I'm more concerned about data files and their loss (including downloaded software install.exe's, etc.) than an easy restoration from an image saved on the server.

But it can do ALL that. I had planned to just get another XP or VISTA OS to use as a file server (replacing my Win 2000 file-server OS) -- if I had misgivings about WHS. But it looks like I'm sort of hooked on it now . . .

It's got all the features to be a media server -- I'd think for systems with -- or without -- Media Center.

I haven't heard of anyone who's unhappy with WHS.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I appreciate the input. I'll take it under consideration but if possible I'd like to do this without having to buy another OS, as I'm already over budget. I don't mind if I have to do the backups manually At the moment I have very little in the way of a backup strategy so my number 1 priority is getting at least something under way.

 

[rudder]

FreeNAS is always an option. You can add Bacula which is a backup module. But for all the time setting it up it may be more cost effective to get WHS!

 

[Nothinman]

I'd go with Linux, but that's just me. The software RAID options are much more capable and flexible, especially when combined with LVM.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd go with Linux, but that's just me.[...]

Me too!

I digress...

Whatever you do, don't use Microsoft/Danger!

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/...ll-your-sidekick-data/ (T-Mobile: We probably lost all your Sidekick data)

I'll bet T-Mobile wishes they went with Linux now!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Sorry, Vin, but I don't see a lot there that's seriously relevant to this.

There had been some pre-service-pack issues with WHS. They had something to do with the drive-extender or the duplication feature, or some aspect therein. But it had all been fixed in "PowerPack 1."

There may be other options -- per Linux and what someone mentioned as "FreeNAS." But for the price, I don't see how WHS isn't at the top of the list. I think I paid something like $80 for the OEM WHS install kit. In fact, unless things have changed, that's all you can GET for a "home-built server" -- the OEM install

Seems a lot better than having a workstation do double duty as a peer-to-peer server while using a workstation OS like VISTA or XP.

Some people have used VMWare or other virtual-machine software to run WHS as a virtual machine within a VISTA, XP, possibly even a Windows 7 OS.

 

[Modelworks]

Freenas is not hard to set up as some may suggest. It isn't as easy for someone not familiar with nix type systems, but it isn't a mind boggling task either.

The great thing is it is FREE , you can try it and if it doesn't work out for you then spend more money.
http://www.freenas.org/

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd go with Linux, but that's just me.[...]

Me too!

I digress...

Whatever you do, don't use Microsoft/Danger!

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/...ll-your-sidekick-data/ (T-Mobile: We probably lost all your Sidekick data)

I'll bet T-Mobile wishes they went with Linux now!

That is completely irrelevant. The idiot sys admins that didn't properly implement backup and DR procedures deserve the full fall of that mistake, not the OS they used.

Aside from that, personally I would use Linux. I would use WHS if I had a use for it's backup features, but since I don't I find that Linux fits the job a lot better.

Right now my 'file server' hosts my Subversion repositories for school work and personal projects which backup automatically to a VPS I have while also hosting all of my media files using Samba while they are stored via mdraid + LVM. It's been sitting in the corner for years now with no issues aside from a broken PSU I had to replace.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd go with Linux, but that's just me.[...]

Me too!

I digress...

Whatever you do, don't use Microsoft/Danger!

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/...ll-your-sidekick-data/ (T-Mobile: We probably lost all your Sidekick data)

I'll bet T-Mobile wishes they went with Linux now!

I'll be sure not to use Sidekick cloud services to store my local backups :roll: Thanks for the anti-MS rhetoric, I thought I might get through a whole day without reading some.

 

[nerp]

WTF does the t-mobile thing have to do with WHS? Nothing.

WHS is king.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd go with Linux, but that's just me.[...]

Me too!

I digress...

Whatever you do, don't use Microsoft/Danger!

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/...ll-your-sidekick-data/ (T-Mobile: We probably lost all your Sidekick data)

I'll bet T-Mobile wishes they went with Linux now!

That is completely irrelevant. The idiot sys admins that didn't properly implement backup and DR procedures deserve the full fall of that mistake, not the OS they used.

Aside from that, personally I would use Linux. I would use WHS if I had a use for it's backup features, but since I don't I find that Linux fits the job a lot better.

Right now my 'file server' hosts my Subversion repositories for school work and personal projects which backup automatically to a VPS I have while also hosting all of my media files using Samba while they are stored via mdraid + LVM. It's been sitting in the corner for years now with no issues aside from a broken PSU I had to replace.

This sounds like EXACTLY what I'm after. I've never used Samba before, is it fairly pain-free to share files between Linux and Windows machines? How do you administer this machine, do you have a monitor/keyboard or is it done remotely (SSH)? Which Linux distro are you using, and are you happy with it?

Hope you don't mind the barrage of questions, this is my first project like this

 

[Nothinman]

Sorry, Vin, but I don't see a lot there that's seriously relevant to this.

That's largely a theme with his posts...

 

[Crusty]

I've been using Ubuntu LTS releases for the OS, all admin is done remotely via SSH. If I need a GUI I'll fire up vncserver(but that's rare). Don't forget you can always use Webmin to have a web based control panel, it has samba modules to help with the configuration.

As far as the actual Samba setup goes, it totally depends on the level of integration you want with user accounts. For myself since I only have my desktop and laptop I use a combination of iptables and samba's 'host allow/deny' options to secure my files. If you want to have a setup more like Active Directory you'll need to configure something like openLDAP as well. As far as getting access to the files on my Windows PCs it's identical to using a Windows based file server, just browse to the server via explorer and work away.

Whenever I need to add disk space I always add drives in pairs using mdraid 1 and then add it to my LVM setup, this guarantees that my data is always on two disks at once. mdraid is incredibly flexible and can pretty much do any kind of raid setup you can think of. The best part IMO is that if your controller dies and you get a new one you don't have to worry about losing your data because your new controller doesn't recognize the old raid setup.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I'm planning on building a new gaming system and using my current PC as a simple file server. Basically it will be used to host media and make daily backups.

What do you mean by "host media"? If you might mean including some media PC roles, then a Windows client OS might be a safer bet. If you mean just a file store, then Server 2008 might be marginally better, but I'd probably still go with Vista, because unless you have a very specific need for a server OS, the lack of consumer volume / roles might be a bigger hindrance than a help -- lack of formal support, and sometimes even explicit support blockage (installation fails with message saying it supports XP/Vista only, etc.), and sometimes much higher cost for software (i.e. need to use pricey "server" version of software, due to a pricing model expecting shared business usage).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

For what my opinion is worth, I set up a simple fileserver using Xubuntu, and I do basically all of my admin via SSH and Webmin. I also run Torrentflux on it, since I was installing Apache anyway. It is ridiculously easy to set up. I simply installed Xubuntu, added the Webmin and Torrentflux packages directly from the package manager, and it installed all the dependencies for me. Then I uninstalled xubuntu-desktop to get rid of the desktop environment. Viola: a headless fileserver totally controllable over my network.

Setting up a Samba fileshare is pretty straightforward in Webmin. Just name the directory you want to share on your Window's network and then map it as a network drive in XP/Vista/etc. I use the machine as a central place to store media files and backup files I create with Acronis. I'm sure there are more elegant solutions, and more secure solutions too, but this is really straightforward for someone who is at best an intermediate Linux user.

It runs on an old HP Pavilion PIII with 128MB of RAM, too.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Crusty
That is completely irrelevant. The idiot sys admins that didn't properly implement backup and DR procedures deserve the full fall of that mistake, not the OS they used.

Aside from that, personally I would use Linux.[...]

As I said, I would use Linux too!

As an aside, the Microsoft/Danger deal was an inside job... disgruntled employee(s) probably.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...D80025764E0053DB1F.DTL (SFGate | Sidekick implosion: Was it sabotage?)

Points out massive problems at MS!

You may *think* that it's irrelevant, but it signals why I prefer Linux, et al, to Microsoft anything...

 

[DivideBYZero]

I've tried most, inc. Linux based, and ended up with WHS. The backup agent functionality is easy, and the DNLA media server/PS3 streaming requires no effort. It's win/win.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Crusty
That is completely irrelevant. The idiot sys admins that didn't properly implement backup and DR procedures deserve the full fall of that mistake, not the OS they used.

Aside from that, personally I would use Linux.[...]

As I said, I would use Linux too!

As an aside, the Microsoft/Danger deal was an inside job... disgruntled employee(s) probably.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...D80025764E0053DB1F.DTL (SFGate | Sidekick implosion: Was it sabotage?)

Points out massive problems at MS!

You may *think* that it's irrelevant, but it signals why I prefer Linux, et al, to Microsoft anything...

:roll:

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Crusty
That is completely irrelevant. The idiot sys admins that didn't properly implement backup and DR procedures deserve the full fall of that mistake, not the OS they used.

Aside from that, personally I would use Linux.[...]

As I said, I would use Linux too!

As an aside, the Microsoft/Danger deal was an inside job... disgruntled employee(s) probably.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...D80025764E0053DB1F.DTL (SFGate | Sidekick implosion: Was it sabotage?)

Points out massive problems at MS!

You may *think* that it's irrelevant, but it signals why I prefer Linux, et al, to Microsoft anything...

:roll:

Don't bother. His logic is not grounded in any real reality and you can't get as whacked out as him to debate on his level.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Oh, look. VinDSL is trolling again.

Anyway, I use and love WHS as well. I have had it die on me (primary drive died). Recovered all the data (after a lot of hard drive juggling), and the server is back online. Now the primary drive has 3 750gb hard drives in RAID 5 off of the Areca 1220 RAID controller. Doesn't mind a bit, and it likes have that 1.3 terabytes on the primary disk.

The server does data backup and storage, plus media streaming to the Xbox in the living room via 802.11n. Eveyrthing is working beautifully.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[VinDSL]

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.[...]

Er...

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 )

The release team announced that the port of the Debian system to the FreeBSD kernel was now fit to be handled on an equal fitting with other release ports.[...]

Debian project leader Steve McIntyre told iTWire: "We've had people working on porting Debian to other kernels for almost as long as Debian has been around. That work first started off using the GNU/Hurd kernel, but for a variety of reasons that's not been a particularly successful project.

"More recently, there have been small groups of people looking instead at using various BSD kernels as a basis for a Debian distro. The GNU/kFreeBSD folks have now got their port to the stage where it's just about ready to ship along with our other architectures in a stable release, and we're hoping to do that in Squeeze."[...]

More reasons cited are:

* Possible support for ZFS in the mainline kernel. Due to license and patent issues, ZFS is unlikely to appear on Linux.[...]

LoL!

Looks like I'll be moving to Debian "Squeeze"... :thumbsup: