srgess

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
556
0
18,990
I have a Computer that i want to plan to make it a storage place with my neighbors can put some files and share files. Its a Dual Xeon 2ghz (256kcache old school :) ), with 512ram pc600 ecc. I have already 2 Sata2 Drive of 320GB, playing to get 2-4 more. Im playing also to get a pci 64bit sata2 raid, because the board is too old to have a onboard sata2 host. It have a Scsi but i just installing the os on it. And my question is should i go with windows 2003 server or Linux, Fedora Core. Because my neighbors use all windows xp, so ntfs system is easy to share and use, but i have tried fedora core a time ago the drive i was sharing was ntfs also but in linux its kinda hard to make a network system mounting ntfs drive and people to see the drive. But i never tried to format the shared drive to ext files system; is it more secure then ntfs and sharing ability to windows system ?
 

Madwand

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2006
382
0
18,780
You don't have to get 2003 Server. W2K, XP, Vista, and others all would work fine (up to their connection limit) if you want to stick with Windows-based.

For Linux-based systems, you should use native file systems. Although NTFS is supported to some degree, there's no need for it in this case, and native ext / XFS / others would have advantages of better integrated support.

SAMBA would be able to provide Windows-based shares if you want, independent of the underlying file system.

However, you might be better off setting up an ftp server -- ftp is a more efficient protocol and is easier to support.
 

srgess

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
556
0
18,990
You don't have to get 2003 Server. W2K, XP, Vista, and others all would work fine (up to their connection limit) if you want to stick with Windows-based.

For Linux-based systems, you should use native file systems. Although NTFS is supported to some degree, there's no need for it in this case, and native ext / XFS / others would have advantages of better integrated support.

SAMBA would be able to provide Windows-based shares if you want, independent of the underlying file system.

However, you might be better off setting up an ftp server -- ftp is a more efficient protocol and is easier to support.

Lan ftp ? , its because i want my neighboor can load application from my server. I am building a fiber optic lan, because i can get free cable and i got cards for 5$ :) And yeah im used to use samba for file sharing but yeah ntfs under linux is tricky a bit, but the best would be to format all the drive to etx file system or xfs ? and i dont plan to raid the drives.
 

Madwand

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2006
382
0
18,780
ftp is also fine within a LAN -- it's faster than SAMBA. Using ftp would also allow you to separate your network from your neighbors for security / etc., but that's another issue..

I've liked XFS for performance.

If you wanted to get really fancy for probably no good reason, you could try Solaris with ZFS.

Much of this is moot with 100 Mb/s networking, as the network would be the most significant bottleneck. (I presume you're not getting gigabit fiber NICs for $5.) ext2 or ext3 might be the best as default native file systems.
 

srgess

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
556
0
18,990
Its PCI 1 Gigabit Ethernet SC/SX Cards, I have a Fiber Optic SC/SX Hub with 7 Gibc that cost 10$ lol, ebay for the win. When you see how it go with fiber optic you will never want to go back to RJ-45. For security its not that bad because the server i will not put it on the internet and its on a fiber line, i think putting some user with password under linux and using Xfs files system will be enought ?
 

Madwand

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2006
382
0
18,780
Fiber's the best choice for distance / across buildings in any case.

XFS should be good. Don't forget ftp if it comes time to test transfer speeds -- it will probably outperform SAMBA, esp. in the hybrid environment. Of course SAMBA will be more convenient for Windows users.

Good luck.

Edit: FWIW, for people considering Windows-based system, I'd suggest Vista. It's still early, and you need to check drive support, etc., but the new networking / etc., give performance benefits, and the native SMB + SMB 2.0 for Vista clients should be good for Windows clients.
 

tleavit

Distinguished
Jun 28, 2006
145
0
18,680
Linux is safer than windows. Most viruses, spyware, trojan do not affect Linux. You can share the files through Samba. Works perfectly. The cost of Linux is much smaller than Windows 2003.

We need to throw you up in them Mac commercials next to that Mac dude as the Linux rep.
 

gse1

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2006
76
0
18,630
If you have a level of Linux experience where you are happy using the command line and doing basic editing of configuration files by hand then definitely use Fedora.

I have a home server running Linux which I share out to various Windows PCs. The machine involved is my old desktop PC which I stripped all the extra sound/graphics and peripherals out of and only has a keyboard attached. It consumes 60W of power under load and I have had zero problems with it after setup other than my idiot landlady pulling the plug on the damn thing without telling me (whilst I was on holiday no less).

If you have a level of competence with Linux then definitely use Fedora! All you have to do is install and configure the OS, install Samba, do some very simple Samba configuration such as defining the shares and create accounts for access, and that's it.

You don't even need to spend money on RAID. I've got a 15 line script which runs once a week and performs an incremental backup of my entire machine onto a seperate disk. Alternatively Linux software RAID is rock solid so that is another possibility.

Other reasons for using Linux. 1 It's free. 2 It's more stable. 3 it uses less system resources (run a mail server, and a DNS server, and an FTP server, and a bittorrent server all on one machine and it'll be rock solid).

And BTW, what filesystem you install on the local machine has absolutely no bearing on what machines you can share it to. So installing a native Linux filesystem on this machine makes no difference sharing the files out to Windows machines. If you install Fedora use ext3, it's not the fastest but it'll be plenty fast enough. Don't use ext2!