Home File Server (W7 vs W Server)

S

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,210
Just want to share my music, videos, and documents around the home network.

Been using W7, and seems to work well enough.

I am not planning to upgrade the hardware, so while I am at it, is there any advantage of moving to a Windows Server setup?
 
Good ones:
- More stability
- Less prone to software problems

Bad ones:
- Will require more knowledge from the owner.
- Will require setup (accounts, shares, passwords etc)
- Pricey
 
A W& license is about $100. A Windows Server license is $6-700 for the standard edition. W7 is easier to setup. Use the same user names/passwords and users can browse right to the shared drives without having to do additional authentication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rma
like this
goodcooper said:
or try freenas and you get everything from column B for $0
Click to expand...

Been thinking about it, as many have suggested, but for some silly reason I am soooo comfortable with NTFS drives.

I really should try freenas and build some comfort there.
 
For what you're doing I don't see any advantage to switching to another OS or a server OS. The server OS doesn't really have an advantage given that you're just using it sharing files.
 
Or option C: Move up to Windows 8 or higher and enjoy the benefits of SMB3. (SMB multichannel) Plug in a 2nd nic on both ends and instant fault tolerance and instant 2gbps bandwidth between those systems. You don't need a managed switch or LACP in order to benefit either. You don't need server OS to get this benefit and in your case Server OS isn't really going to provide a benefit over a desktop OS.
The basics of SMB Multichannel, a feature of Windows Server 2012 and SMB 3.0


I personally wouldn't even bother with a *nix distro for file sharing using SMB (via samba), it's a waste of your time. If I can't drag + drop a file and get instant 100MBps to a share, it probably means the server isn't based on Windows. If you were using Linux to Linux, NFS is probably a better option for you, but if your clients are Windows, you want a Windows box as the file share.
 
bman212121 said:
Or option C: Move up to Windows 8 or higher and enjoy the benefits of SMB3. (SMB multichannel) Plug in a 2nd nic on both ends and instant fault tolerance and instant 2gbps bandwidth between those systems. You don't need a managed switch or LACP in order to benefit either. You don't need server OS to get this benefit and in your case Server OS isn't really going to provide a benefit over a desktop OS.
The basics of SMB Multichannel, a feature of Windows Server 2012 and SMB 3.0


I personally wouldn't even bother with a *nix distro for file sharing using SMB (via samba), it's a waste of your time. If I can't drag + drop a file and get instant 100MBps to a share, it probably means the server isn't based on Windows. If you were using Linux to Linux, NFS is probably a better option for you, but if your clients are Windows, you want a Windows box as the file share.
Click to expand...

Wow, awesome suggestion. I did not know Windows 8 had SMB Multichannel capabilities. My "server" box does have dual nics already.

Definately taking this route.
 
bman212121 said:
I personally wouldn't even bother with a *nix distro for file sharing using SMB (via samba), it's a waste of your time. If I can't drag + drop a file and get instant 100MBps to a share, it probably means the server isn't based on Windows. If you were using Linux to Linux, NFS is probably a better option for you, but if your clients are Windows, you want a Windows box as the file share.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from, still living with a pentium 100MHz?

i do 100MBps over samba shares without any problems, and without any tweaks to my linux
 
Op, you don't sound like you need any features of Windows Server. There *Could* be things over there you may like to have or otherwise take advantage. It really depends on your needs, the effort you want to put in, your skills, etc. What do you have now for data resiliency and backups?

Here's what I run, on Windows Server/home lab: windows domain, a windows server essentials box w/ remote access/vpn, DC, DHCP, DNS WSUS, WDS, etc with iscsi to freenas. When I'm not home I can get into my machines via RD gateway or connect home via VPN. With the windows domain I take advantage of GPO to push common preferences/settings out to machines. I don't like to work on my wife's laptop so backups, updates, application patches, virus defs, etc its all centrally managed for many machines/users, especially hers, all she needs to do is reboot and get an email on any machines out of update compliance. I also take advantage of the data duplication features for my "data" drives both within VMs and external on the VM host, this is a windows server feature which can be (unsupported) added to Windows 8.1 and I believe is now a standard option in 10? I then apply windows permissions to my freenas box and manage perms by OU and much more finer if needed. Much of my file shares are read only for all users including my non-admin user.

On top of the freenas box I run a lubuntu VM w/ a read only NFS mount to the underlying host and backup my "critical" files from freenas to crashplan. Freenas is also my backup target for my VM box. I also take advantage of many freenas plugins/jails(plex, sickrage, etc), and many services so freenas sees much use and is a very critical piece to infrastructure here. There's 10gbe between freenas and my vm host, freenas is primary bulk/slow storage. I have smart disk monitoring on both boxes, use PRTG to monitor everything, freenas sends an email if someone tries to touch it in its special places, backups dispatch emails on success/fail, I have logging and real-time status. Everything is backed up and on UPS.

This has been an excellent setup and like I said, does take some care and feeding to build it. Maintenance is minimal/non existent once established and with WDS repetitive tasks are almost fully eliminated, a "fresh" install is about 11 minutes to PXE boot to be on a desktop :) Next on the project list after I move is to build another freenas box to act as a secondary on site backup target and probably cleaner/consolidated reporting of everything, deploy a secondary 'on hardware' DC, deploy opnsense, and dabble some more with radius and/or AD CS.. I know it's overkill for 98% of the population out there and many SMBs would probably kill to have something like this, but fuck it this is the [H]ard|Forum, not how to be a softy, go big or go home :)

For the windows server you will also get virtualization rights. So you buy windows server and deploy as a VM host only using Hyper-V, no other apps/roles. From there you can do 2 VMs on top for 2012r2 std edition OEM approx $600, there is a 4vm OEM version as well that runs approx $1300. Standard edition is more than plenty. I believe you can also do the same with Windows Server Essentials, $399, and build a HV box and put it in a VM on top. This lends many options on licensing fronts as you may have a need for another server VM. If you go windows server I wouldn't go less than 2012r2. If you are a student you may qualify for programs like dreamspark or MSDN as well which can provide additional license savings. I would skip over WHS builds totally.

Obviously I went all over but wanted to overview my example and show some use cases and provide some licensing information I know my needs differ greatly from yours and again, possibilities exist. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.


goodcooper said:
or try freenas and you get everything from column B for $0
Click to expand...

This. I use this, but also joined to my windows domain network because windows acls.


It does provide its own "domain controller" functionalities for user management as well. OP, read this: FreeNAS: A Worst Practices Guide - FreeNAS - Open Source Storage Operating System and also review its suggested hardware requirements. Some say the price of admission is high, its really how you make it many home users can get by on 8-16gb and have a decent experience. More ram is always better, and always ECC.
 
rma said:
Where did you get that from, still living with a pentium 100MHz?

i do 100MBps over samba shares without any problems, and without any tweaks to my linux
Click to expand...

As is always the case YMMV. I can assure you not two weeks ago a co worker was using a NAS appliance and getting terrible speeds, told him to switch to Server 2012R2 and boom, took a backup job down from > 45 minutes to 6 minutes. But I like to go further than that and know exactly when and why things are broken.

I just did a test with my latest and greatest Mint 17 box and guess what? I can in fact get 100MBps like you stated! That's the first time I've seen it personally. So digging further I see that I'm running Samba v4.3.9 on that system. So that begs the question, when did it finally change? Looking back through the release notes I can find that in v4.1.x they specifically state that support for SMB3 can be enabled now, but it's NOT enabled by default.

Samba 4.1.0 contains the first release of our client tools
and client library that work over the new protocols SMB2 or SMB3.
Note that SMB3 only works either to a Samba server version 4.0.0
or above, or to a Windows Server running Windows 2012 or Windows 8.

The default protocol for smbclient and smbcacls is still
SMB1 (the NT1 protocol dialect). An SMB2 or SMB3 connection
can be selected in one of two ways. The easiest way to test
the new protocol connection is to add the -mMAX_PROTOCOL
command line switch to either smbclient or smbcacls.
Click to expand...
Samba - Release Notes Archive

So if I had to guess that means that either v4.2.x or v.4.3.x got official support for SMB3 out of the box. Freenas 9.3 and Ubuntu 14.04 LTS both use version 4.1.x. meaning their default is likely still SMB1 unless they tweaked it themselves. So the first version of FreeNAS that supports it out of the box is likely 9.10, which was released in March: http://download.freenas.org/9.10/RELEASE/ReleaseNotes

Filesharing:
Samba (SMB filesharing) updated from version 4.1 to 4.3.4
Added GUI feature to allow nfsv3-like ownership when using nfsv4
Various bug fixes related to FreeBSD 10. For more in-depth information,
see the ChangeLog file.
Click to expand...

So back to the original point, for most people, you probably aren't going to see full speeds until your appliance, distro, etc, etc is on the absolute latest version that came out this year. The good news is that it is in fact coming and you might be able to enjoy the benefits we've had since Vista. (SMB2) If you're looking for a drobo, Lacie etc, just make sure that they have an underlying platform with one of the latest versions if it's based on Linux. If you're installing yourself today you can in fact now get something that works. If you're reading this and using an older version, it might be worth a test to see if you can max out a gig connection and if you can't, there might be a distro upgrade that would enable this. For me I'll just stick with my trusty Windows for SMB as it has always worked better for me.
 
I've never had those wonderful SMB3 features just work for 2012r2 where it should use all available connections. It is on my list to review/discover the "why", there has not been a very strong need for my usecase.
 
Many people underestimate what can be done with Windows Professional as a server. You don't get the same user management/Active Directory support as Windows Server, and some of the management tools that make server configuration easier are missing, but for 5-10 people, there really isn't much you would need to do that Windows Pro won't do. Add a few free programs (SSH server, web server, etc.,) and you have a robust machine at a fraction of the price.

I run a vanilla FreeBSD server for my home server. It does way more than I need, but I have it set up primarily to tinker and learn. Otherwise, I would probably just use a Windows Pro machine.
 
Windows ships with IIS, why would you need to bring another web server to the party? I'd agree to a point that Windows X professional can make a decent server, but so can an android phone/device. Just understand what it can and can't do and ensure you are not working outside of reasonable expectations.
 
I would just upgrade to Windows 10 and stay with the desktop OS.

Think twice about using Linux or BSD unless you really want to learn how to use it. Most people can Google their way through setting up the box but when there's a problem you'll wish it was Windows. FreeNAS has its place in the Windows world but learning to troubleshoot and repair it has a steep learning curve if all you know is Windows.
 
scobar said:
I've never had those wonderful SMB3 features just work for 2012r2 where it should use all available connections. It is on my list to review/discover the "why", there has not been a very strong need for my usecase.
Click to expand...

We tested it with a Mac boot camped into Windows 8 using the thunderbolt monitor as one and a usb Ethernet adapter as the 2nd gig connection. On the other end was my laptop with Windows 8 using a USB 3.0 dock and a usb 3.0 Ethernet adapter (Both gigabit as well). Both machines had SSDs in them. Create a share and drop a file into it, simple as that as we were getting 2gbit a second. (This was years ago already) Keep in mind that Windows will not automatically scale if you have two disproportionate adapters. IE you CANNOT use wifi + gig Ethernet as it will not try to use both of those at the same time. It will just attempt to use which ever path is faster.

ochadd: I'm a stronger believer in using what works. I have BSD on some systems where it makes sense, I have Linux on others where it makes sense, and Windows on the rest. If you told me you needed a dedicated system for DHCP, I would probably tell you to use Linux. ISC-DHCP is very stable, very easy to configure, and easy to backup and restore if you have an issue. It's also very lightweight when combined with a CLI only OS. Freenas is probably okay for configuration because it's a boxed appliance and likely has a webpage that was designed for usability. If you had to configure shares from the command line you'd definitely be in for a world of fun as it's a PITA. If samba is working correctly you'll be okay, but if you have problems I'd agree it's going to be a learning experience to try to fix it. If I have the option to use Windows for sharing, I'd take it every time.
 
FreeNAS is more or less like any other NAS unit out there, if you don't know/see the point of having a "server" OS (including data integrity) go for a client OS.

@ bman212121
There's little sense in mixing a lot of OSes, that said dhcpd by OpenBSD is by far a much neater solution than ISC-DHCP with pretty much the same capabilities. Not sure what you have against Samba, while it does lack some features it'll do just fine for the described scenario without any noticeable difference in performance.

In general most here are doing overly complicated setups for your average network that just needs to work.

Get a decent MIPS/ARM router, either business or OpenWRT/LEDE (pfsense/opnsense etc) is overkill by far. Get a NAS, either a decent one like QNAP, Asustor, Synology, Netgear (somewhat decent) or get a box running FreeNAS or whatever and you're done.
 
Last edited:
diizzy said:
FreeNAS is more or less like any other NAS unit out there, if you don't know/see the point of having a "server" OS (including data integrity) go for a client OS.

@ bman212121
There's little sense in mixing a lot of OSes, that said dhcpd by OpenBSD is by far a much neater solution than ISC-DHCP with pretty much the same capabilities. Not sure what you have against Samba, while it does lack some features it'll do just fine for the described scenario without any noticeable difference in performance.

In general most here are doing overly complicated setups for your average network that just needs to work.

Get a decent MIPS/ARM router, either business or OpenWRT/LEDE (pfsense/opnsense etc) is overkill by far. Get a NAS, either a decent one like QNAP, Asustor, Synology, Netgear (somewhat decent) or get a box running FreeNAS or whatever and you're done.
Click to expand...

Well for the complicated part, yes but this is properly for learnings things and knowing how things work., and after all this is hardforum :)
most of my setup is as a test environment for testing different setups, and learnings how to do things, getting new ideas etc.
 
SpeedyVV said:
Wow, awesome suggestion. I did not know Windows 8 had SMB Multichannel capabilities. My "server" box does have dual nics already.

Definately taking this route.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself, though, whether or not it's going to may any difference at all. I get roughly the same write speed between computers and my server across my 1GB network as I do when doing disk to disk writes on the server itself. Only when I do writes between SSDs on both systems do I approach saturating the 1GB network bandwidth. And that's very rare, since all of my media storage on the file server is on HDD.
 
Last edited:
JJ Johnson said:
Ask yourself, though, whether or not it's going to may any difference at all. I get roughly the same write speed between computers and my server across my 1GB network as I do when doing disk to disk writes on the server itself. Only when I do writes between SSDs on both systems do I approach saturating the 1GB network bandwidth. And that's very rare, since all of my media storage on the file server is on HDD.
Click to expand...

Well, I will do a test and see if it makes any difference.
 
You should go with Win 7 because its user friendly, easy to access, no need of commands to run your process, etc.
 
Daedalus0101101 said:
A W& license is about $100. A Windows Server license is $6-700 for the standard edition. W7 is easier to setup. Use the same user names/passwords and users can browse right to the shared drives without having to do additional authentication.
Click to expand...
take a look at the various forums... you can get licenses cheap. I use dreamspark licenses myself. I've attended 3 different colleges in recent years. (2 yr AAS, 4yr BS and now masters) at different schools
 
Weird, but after playing with W7 as a "file server", I tried unRAID, and went with it.

Let's see how that goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top