File server OS

[rallynavvie]

What are people using/recommending for an OS for a computer that will just be fileserving, FTP, mirroring, and other network tasks like that? I've been thinking about Windows Server 2003 or a Linux kernel. The simpler the better, and that's why I'm leaning toward Windoze since I know my way around. Maybe even XP would work. Either way I need some information as I plan on buying the software if needed, and Server 03 isn't cheap. However price will not play a factor in my decision. I just don't want to shell out the money for garbage.

[sterno]

I might use a Windows server if all I wanted to do was serve files or possibly domain logins to a few Windows PCs. But only if I already had a license to use, Windows just costs too much for something that requires that much babysitting.

If you really must use Windows, you can probably do fine with a workstation version as long as you don't need to provide domain logins or serve Windows network shares to too many PCs at once (there is a limit based on the licensing). A Server version can do logins and serve a lot more users on file shares. I think Server also ships with IIS, which will provide both web and FTP (though third-party solutions are often better).

On my network I've always used Linux and BSD for server tasks. File shares for Windows and Mac, caching/filtering web proxy, documentation (web-based), database apps, version control repository, e-mail with spam filtering, LDAP (e-mail address book), DNS, DHCP, and NTP.

[Faustus]

Basic file serving and FTP are quite easy to handle just on an XP box, no special anything required. Now if you want more then that... like web serving and stuff you can look into Server 2k3, but learning linux(dont know it myself) might be the better bet in that situation.

[bazooka]

I recommend Fedora Core

[stiltman]

What are people using/recommending for an OS for a computer that will just be fileserving, FTP, mirroring, and other network tasks like that? I've been thinking about Windows Server 2003 or a Linux kernel. The simpler the better, and that's why I'm leaning toward Windoze since I know my way around. Maybe even XP would work. Either way I need some information as I plan on buying the software if needed, and Server 03 isn't cheap. However price will not play a factor in my decision. I just don't want to shell out the money for garbage.

How many computers will be connecting to this file server?

[rallynavvie]

Not many at once I don't think. I'm blessed with a pretty good upload speed but don't want to choke it much anyway. I'd say maybe a dozen at once at peak. The hardware is there, I have no worries that will be a problem. Just need software to make it available.

Mostly it's going to be my gallery mirror/archive (newest stuff stays on the website server, older stuff on the mirror), the bigger drives will carry archival data for local use, and on top of it all run a game server once in a while. That would probably cause more than a dozen clients though.

[stiltman]

I would use IIS 5 in XP pro then.
Advertized max connection is 10, but you can set it to a number less than 40. No need to waste your money on server

[rallynavvie]

Is IIS 5 a service built in to XP or additional software? Money isn't so much an issue for me. If Server 2003 can run programs that run in XP that would be nice. However I also like the stability from Linux platforms. I have a couple friends running their own servers on Linux kernels, one running OSX (which made me wish I had a dual G4 running my server), and one running Win2k.

One thing I'd like to be available is bandwidth limitations on the server portion. Also depending on the features of the OS I may put this machine on the outside of the wireless router and make it a network firewall as well.

[stiltman]

I gave a windows response because it's the easiest setup for "most" people. Do you know linux? If you do, I would suggest it 100%, especially if you're going to run it at the DMZ....If you don't know linux, I would stick with windows behind a firewall...I would suggest you do that with all your stuff, but If I was going to put an OS out in the fire, I'd put linux

[sterno]

I can't speak to the Windows side, but on the UNIX side proftpd and Apache (with mod_throttle) both support various types of bandwidth limits. Linux supports traffic shaping (OS-level network throttling and prioritization) in the kernel, and I think all the BSDs do as well. You can use Apache in Windows, but I'm not sure that mod_throttle or any of the other similar modules work correctly in Windows.

I wouldn't recommend putting a Windows machine out on the open internet. Actually you may not want to use IIS either. I have some Apache/Windows servers at work and it runs just fine.

[rallynavvie]

I think I decided which OS I want to run on the other SMP workstation now: Windows MCE 2005. Apparently it works just like XP but has the MCE software built into the OS. So now all I need is a PVR or similar and I can double my file server as my HTPC. All that and still be able to pull it and use it as I would any other WinXP machine. Remote desktop to the primary workstation or the laptop even to be able to access the thing from anywhere in the house. Sounds like fun, I just have to run its GbE cabling out to the storage space it'll reside in (it's still a bit loud for a proper HTPC) behind my entertainment system. I think a dual 1900 system should be able to fileserve from its SCSI hardware and play movies/music from its larger IDE drives without any problems, don't you think?

[ViRaL1]

I don't see any reason why not. I have W2KAS on my PowerEdge Single Xeon 2.0 and I can stream video to my laptop or any other PC. You'll really only need GbE coming out of the server, but you shouldn't need it beyond the first switch. Unless you plan on pushing / pulling large files all the time from multiple machines. My Xeon runs to the GbE port on my switch and everything else coming off of it (including the router) is 100Mbps. If you have other machines that you think can take advantage you can opt for an all GbE switch, otherwise, 1 port should be enough.

[rallynavvie]

I've already decided on a totally GbE LAN here as I do transfer large video files around quite often. The increased data bandwidth will certainly be used. All my video work is done on the primary workstation and then once a week has passed it goes onto archive on the big IDE drives in that other box right now. GbE would also allow me to work on those files a little without having to pull them locally first.