Linux as a file server

[Nelson37]

Have a couple of installations using WinServer 2008 or 2003, at aroung $1000.00 just for the OS, where a simple file-server is all that is really needed. I'm considering some flavor of Linux that might be a better alternative.

User-rights management, hi-performance file serving, and possibly backup options are really the only requirements.

Does Linux in a commercial environment require a paid license?

Does Linux best utilize dual or quad-cores?

Need a GUI interface that ideally resembles Windows so that clients can perform simple tasks. Mainly adding users and managing group rights, running backups. If it requires a CLI, that just won't work.

The more standard and recognizable the name, the better. This will be a bit of a tough sell as it is, trying to use something with a name like "Humpty-pie" or whatever just wouldn't look good.

Any recommendations?

[Dv8ted2]

Linux has a file server called Samba. Linux in a commercial environment doesn't need a paid license, but if you need support, you are better off paying for Red Hat Enterprise or SUSE.

[disturbed1]

Have a couple of installations using WinServer 2008 or 2003, at aroung $1000.00 just for the OS, where a simple file-server is all that is really needed. I'm considering some flavor of Linux that might be a better alternative.

User-rights management, hi-performance file serving, and possibly backup options are really the only requirements.

Yes. Full ACL support with CIFS, SMBFS has been depreciated for 5 or 6 years.

Does Linux in a commercial environment require a paid license?

It is covered under a single license, regaurdless of use. The license for most Linux Distrubutions is GPL.

Does Linux best utilize dual or quad-cores?

And then some Recent commits were made to make use of super computers that use well over 1,000 cores.

Need a GUI interface that ideally resembles Windows so that clients can perform simple tasks. Mainly adding users and managing group rights, running backups. If it requires a CLI, that just won't work.

I don't under stand this part. Are you going to let the users mess with ACLs? Not too bright. Ideally a file server is a box that sits in a corner somewhere that a qualified and knowledgeable admin administrates. User use, admins administrate. Never let a user attempt to admin a system. But yes, there are GUIs for most control aspects.

The more standard and recognizable the name, the better. This will be a bit of a tough sell as it is, trying to use something with a name like "Humpty-pie" or whatever just wouldn't look good.
Any recommendations?

Then that could cost you money.

I recommend you to do some research. Hope you're not the one that's going to "pitch" the sell. No offense, but I think you are in over you head on this one. Also if your company doesn't have a person that is Linux smart, you'll be in a heap of trouble. I'm sure you wouldn't let an 8 year old manage your company server, why would you let someone that doesn't know Linux do the same?

If all you really need is a simple file server, buy a NAS. They will more than cover User-rights management, hi-performance file serving, and possibly backup options are really the only requirements.
Using a Linux server solely for the above purpose is like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture on the wall

[betwixt]

Take a look at: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition/features

Linux has everything that Windows has, and is based closely on UNIX which was being used for servers some 20 years before Windows hit the streets.

Samba is just part of it. SaMBa is the Linux application to handle Windows SMB shares and is very stable. Natively, it uses TCP/IP so you will find it compatible with almost all operating systems.

Yes, it is absolutely free and very easy to use. You don't need to use a CLI but it is there if you choose to use it.

You will find a huge following of Linux on the net so you don't have to look far for help if you need it. Dv8ted2 is right though, if you really want instant support 24/7 there are companies that will hold your hand but they tend to tie you to a specific Linux release. Note though, that Linux is a core application with many faces. They are almost 100% compatible with only the user interface being customized so almost all server applications will work equally well. You wont look back.

Brian.

[dLee]

I've set up servers with Red Hat, Suse and Ubuntu. Mostly my servers are multi-purpose, acting as firewall, DHCP server, caching DNS server, etc and file server.

The Network Attached Storage is a good idea. Mostly they run on Linux, although it sounds like you already have the hardware and are looking to escape the Micro$oft tax.

Ubuntu is incredibly well documented. If you run into a problem, there are online howto's galore - some may be out of date and you'll have to update the methods to fit your situation.

Once I have the servers running and stable, I've had good luck training clients to perform simple tasks.

Some O'Reilly books that I found indispensible:

Linux Server Hacks
The Linux Network Administrator's Guide
Linux in a Nutshell

[Nelson37]

This is not really something I am going to "pitch", just something I feel may be a realistic alternative in some cases, and if I'm not telling customers of a reasonable way to save $1000.00, I'm not doing my job.

I've fooled enough with Linux to know it a little bit, however the investment in time and effort to learn it's CLI is not yet justifiable. Left that behind with the DOS days, and I spent years learning that because it was the only game in town. Linux appears to be written by someone who thought DOS was too simple.

Have 3 or 4 NAS boxes in service now, one has f'd up massively, another has had several intermittant problems, and all have different management interfaces, none of which I am really fond of. In fact this weekend I'm going to back up and wipe one out because the head office "guru" who installed it neglected to let anyone know the management password. Sure, the reset may do the job but gotta make the backup first, anyway.

I figure if I am going to use a linux box for storage, at least I'll use one with replaceable NIC's and a standard hard drive interface. With a single management software that is worth taking the time to learn, and does what I need it to do.

Main thing users need to access the server for is to add or remove users, or change passwords. I train someone to do these simple tasks as I am not onsite, and it is silly to place a service call just to add a new user. There are times when this is necessary as there may not be anyone available suitable to do these things.

Most of my nets are small, 5 to 10, with a couple in the 20-40 range. There are a few who run no server-based apps, and just need centralized file storage. One of these just bought new server software and I was looking over their system (new customer) and found myself wondering why they needed a thousand dollar OS. Then I dug into the MS licensing for Server 2008 and got downright pissed off. There just has to be a better way.

If I understand this right, it is fairly easy to "package up" a Linux install with accompanying software? Drive maintenance and error-checking, undelete, backup functions, user management, file security and sharing. Would be nice to be able to duplicate a standard install.

Figured I'd start with Ubuntu as it is the only one a customer has ever mentioned, and a few seemed to recognize the name.

[disturbed1]

Gottcha Makes perfect since now.

Ubuntu is popular in the Desktop, not so popular for a server. There is a good forum for desktop use, the server forum is practically dead with many unanswered questions. It would do good for getting your feet wet. The thing with Linux, once you learn how to use/setup/work around one distro, most will not transfer to another one. Ubuntu has different gui's and package names than say Red Hat. Not a bad thing, but something to watch out for. This is a huge headache for many people. There is a saying in the Linux community that if you learn Red Hat, you'll know Red Hat, but if you learn Slackware, you'll know Linux :P

As far as server options go -
Red Hat is most likely number 1. Well known (NASA, Dow Jones), great support, lots of info out there. 99.9% of commercial applications will work and offer support against Red Hat. It is, however not free (cost). Instead there are a couple of options. CentOS IS Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the name nor logo. It is the exact same software, options, everything, it just is not called Red Hat. What ever advise, howto .... you get for Red Hat translates verbatim to CentOS.

Novell Suse is most likely number #2 or #3. Novell is a big name in corps. You can get SLED (Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop) for free, but you'll lose the updates after the trial period ends. There is not a free (cost) alternative to SLED. Suse does offer openSUSE, their free (cost) distro. This is the testing grounds for SLED. If you would deploy Windows 7 RC1, you would use openSUSE

Debian is most likely #3 or #2. This is where Ubuntu sucks it's packages from. All of Ubuntu's packages come from Debian and 95% of the Debian devs. They then hack on it and paint it brown Debian could be the #1 most deployed web server out there. The documentation is by far possibly the most extensive. The down side to Debian is it's user base. Many Debian "experts" are Linux zealots. The mailing list reads more like a soap opera than a help list. Not friendly grounds for someone new <- Which is why Ubuntu took off. Ubuntu is Debian with a friendlier user base. But it is stable and rock solid, not always fun trying to get help.

Something that you might want to look at too is FreeNAS. It is BSD. Has a nice web based GUI, easy to setup and deploy as an appliance type http://www.freenas.org/

Red Hat and Suse both contribute huge amounts of money and code to Linux projects. These companies are responsible for most of KDE and Gnome. Red Hat does extensive work on the kernel, and many of the underlying base tools. If it wasn't for Red Hat, Linux would not exist today. Suse has recently ramped up their efforts in the Kernel department. They've always been a huge help to Gnome - they wrote probably half the code base there alone.

Debian has a bad habit of not contributing upstream, causing fights, and when a Debian doesn't like something a dev does, they'll fork the code and attempt to move along on their own. Like a child.

In my most humble opinion - if this is something you are charging for, or want enterprise quality out of - head over to http://www.centos.org/ download the disc,
http://wiki.centos.org/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/en-US/Introduction_To_Syst...ministration_/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/en-US/System_Administration_Guide_/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/en-US/Reference_Guide/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/step-guide/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Installation_Guide/index.html
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/red-hat-31/

www.linuxquestions.org has a lot of smart people there. They do expect you to at least skim through the manual, not necessarily RTFM. If you ask a stupid question that it is the first result on a google search you most likely will get flamed though .

[Nelson37]

That's what I'm looking for, thanks. Oh, goodie, more manuals to read.

Looks like CentOS sounds like a winner. Maybe Suse, I'm an old Novell guy from way back.

The different distros and their incompatibility has been an issue that has concerned me. Things like KDE and Gnome, I know roughly what they are but have no idea why I would want one over the other. Outside of specific apps which work on one, then there is an alternative app for the other, and again I have no clue why I would choose a particular one.

Like you mention Slackware as more a less a "standardized" Linux, but not as a server.

I'm not gonna charge for the OS, also I don't think that's legal. I'm not in the retail end, I just charge for labor. Possibly customers with an extra grand in their pocket might think of some more work they need done. Also, there is no one in my area doing anything with Linux professionally. I could corner the market.

[dLee]

Main thing users need to access the server for is to add or remove users, or change passwords. I train someone to do these simple tasks as I am not onsite, and it is silly to place a service call just to add a new user. There are times when this is necessary as there may not be anyone available suitable to do these things.

I can log into my servers remotely and do whatever I need (except change out hardware) without an in-person visit - but I do use the command line. GUI's are fine to a point, but the command line is where the power lies.

Slackware is not a good choice for your first Linux experience.

Figure out what packages you need and choose a distro that is supported by all of them, most likely Ubuntu, Suse and RH.