FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


A good File Server OS..





dan751
I need a little help. I want to create a server for my home that will host all the music, movies and pictures so that I don't have the same picture on 4 or 5 machines. All the computers are running Windows XP. I want to know which OS would be best to host these kinds of files? Windows or Linux? If Linux, which version? If Windows, I have XP. Any and all assistance is appreciated. Thanks.Smile
SoftStag
I think this depends on what you are comfortable with. Windows XP will be fine for filesharing, and even running Apache. Linux will do it better, with lesser equipment, but if you are not familiar with Linux then it is a steep learning curve.
Arnie
If you would want to run a server on Linux for Windows machines you'd need Samba.
Nyizsa
If you are not connected to the Internet, Win XP is quite good for you. Win 2000 might be even better. It is possible that the only thing you need is to share your pics / music folder - you might not need a fileserver to be installed.
If you also want to share your internet connection, I would use an Unix-like (Linux) system.
And it is also a good idea to install a web server - you can have a nice LAN at home for the family... Smile
root
FREEBSD For The Win!!!!!!!

Linux is more stable and easier to setup as a server. Gentoo is good too =P

Windows XP is not meant to be used as a server so don't.
SoftStag
root wrote:
Linux is more stable and easier to setup as a server.

Linux is only easier to setup if you are familiar with it. If you've never used Linux before, it is far more complicated than Windows.
root
SoftStag wrote:
root wrote:
Linux is more stable and easier to setup as a server.

Linux is only easier to setup if you are familiar with it. If you've never used Linux before, it is far more complicated than Windows.


If you want a secure server than Linux is easier...
Arnie
Here we go again... I could've known considered your signature (edit: which you changed now, thanks). You should read the opening post instead of prematurely grabbing the opportunity of showing how pro you really are because you're anti-MS. The server is only meant for personal use in a LAN. Not for the outside world.

And if you're going to set up a server to the outside world, it's a big lie that you're safe just by using Linux. That's obviously one of the favourite arguments of the fundamentalists, but it's not true. If you don't configure and patch a Linux server correctly you're still unsafe. And it requires a lot of time to do that well.

P.S. This was written using Konqueror, so save me the Windows-Linux discussion. Or find another topic where I've already had that.
aciminsk
Arnie wrote:
Here we go again... I could've known considered your signature. You should read the opening post instead of prematurely grabbing the opportunity of showing how pro you really are because you're anti-MS. The server is only meant for personal use in a LAN. Not for the outside world.

And if you're going to set up a server to the outside world, it's a big lie that you're safe just by using Linux. That's obviously one of the favourite arguments of the fundamentalists, but it's not true. If you don't configure and patch a Linux server correctly you're still ujnsafe. And it requires a lot of time to do that well.

P.S. This was written using Konqueror, so save me the Windows-Linux discussion. Or find another topic where I've already had that.

Agree,
besides configuring NFS and Samba for an XP User would be quite a challenge
charredii
I'm sure it can't be too bad...I'm a native to windows, but i have doddled along the edge with linux. There's plenty of documentation everywhere and usually, verbose method can really help the n00b out. Regardless, i have confidence in you that you'd be able to successfully install linux or BSD.

then again, it also depends on your server hardware and network setup, like everyone said before
dan751
I've been thinking of getting a server version of Windows. which one do you guys recommend?
virtualsom
If you are firm with windows OS , Then get yourself windows 2003 - Standard Edition. I hope it will not be too heavy on your pocket.

- Virtualsom
dac_nip
dan751 wrote:
I've been thinking of getting a server version of Windows. which one do you guys recommend?

I suggest you use linux. it will save a lot of money, plus some perseverance and you should be able to set it up. There are lots of documentation out there if you encounter problems plus you have us here. By the way, review the things that they've been posting, all the things you need have already been said. If you plan on going online for the lan, than use linux, 70% of the severs around the world use linux. But if its just for home use and file sharing then there is no need to set up a server. Just some network connections would be fine. For Windows, I think they are stable with windows 2000? Im not sure.
GOMichael
I would reccomend using a NAS (Network attached Storage.)

Buffalo makes a good one - and it's Gigabit if your network can support it.

http://tinyurl.com/bf629
charredii
NAS is only cost-effective if you don't have spare parts lying around. otherwise, a linux machines is so much cheaper.
Arnie
charredii wrote:
I'm sure it can't be too bad...I'm a native to windows, but i have doddled along the edge with linux. There's plenty of documentation everywhere and usually, verbose method can really help the n00b out. Regardless, i have confidence in you that you'd be able to successfully install linux or BSD.

then again, it also depends on your server hardware and network setup, like everyone said before
A lot of documentation is really too long or too complicated (often a lot of details or written "from a high tower") and verbose mode is more used for debugging and detecting errors. Which is exactly what a n00b would not do.
charredii
how did you learn linux, Arnie??

Edit: Check out FreeNAS, it's a small, free distro of BSD that is made specifically for network storage.

http://www.freenas.org/
Rocky3478
I'd say that Linux would be a good choice, or an older Mac.
Arnie
I learnt Linux by downloading a lot of distros, putting them on floppies and CDs, and booting them. Experimenting on old hardware. (All my hardware is old.) I would recommend BasicLinux for a first one on old hardware.
{name here}
Windows NT Series(I.E. NT/2000/XP/Vista) will be enough. Just LAN them and share one of their HDs. Linux, BSD, or Plan 9/Inferno would be a waste for a simple LAN file sharing network. If you plan for a Internet connected server, get eComStation or OpenBSD, as they are the most secure OSes you'll be able to buy...
rex123
The initial request was "I want to create a server for my home that will host all the music, movies and pictures so that I don't have the same picture on 4 or 5 machines"

This isn't really an OS issue. It's a storage issue. Get a big hard drive (or a few), and off you go. You can use any OS you like. All Windows OS's since 98/Me are reasonable in networks. Linux is fun, and I would recommend it if you like spending time configuring things and working out how they work. I don't know much about MacOS, but the latest versions are based on some kind of Linux, so I imagine the networking is good.

It probably comes down to your own ability to look after it.
ben.lastname
dac_nip wrote:

I suggest you use linux. it will save a lot of money, plus some perseverance and you should be able to set it up.



I ran into the same plight a year ago. I personally am not much of a Linux user but after installing Fedora with the "minimal" option and then enabling samba I had all I needed to do windows file sharing.

I personally feel that SMB is easier in the long run. Samba includes a web interface so any shares or permissions you want to modify can be done from any computer withough having some crappy remote access that runs with a TON of overhead.

It's cheaper because you don't buy an OS but then you also don't need a monster computer to get performance either. I am running my file server on a 333Mhz computer with 64 megs of ram. I am proud to say that I pulled this PC out of a dumpster. This puppy had a decent IDE controler so the thing actually runs fairly fast. The most expensive thing was the 200 gig hard drive and I got that on sale.

So although I spent some time choosing an OS to run the project cost me $90 and has been running flawlessly ever since.
TheGeek
Go with linux, I had little experience with linux past an installation when I started my file server project and so far it has worked great. If you have a low end machine like i do, I am running my file server off an old PII. I use DSL for the OS and im running Samba.

I recommend that unless you can use something like ubuntu cuz its easier to use on the install

::EDIT adding stuff from before cuz my teacher was yelling at me to get off::

Ubuntu and Mandrake actually, if you can support it with the hardware. They both have an easy get-app type thing where it will automatically download and unpack any tarball from any ftp or http location which makes things a little easier. But i had almost no problem getting it up and running in DSL so either way its more or less a simple process and it only took me about 2 hours from start to finish including installation and setup of OS.
Related topics
What is your operating system?
PC Controlling
High Performance Linux
New to Linux
[Official] Security: Anti-Spyware/Virus, & Firewall
Building a server
My Disk Server, File Server Software
How can I share a bandwidth of Internet connection
Linux v Windows web servers...
Windows 2003 server as Printer server
Running server OS
File Server and Resource Manager (Part 2)
Server OS
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Software

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.