Home server OS options

D

dark_mark

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
16
I would like to set up a files server at home.The wife throws a fit everytime I make changes to her system and her documents disappear. I would like to have place where all our media and docs could be stored to for sharing as well.

I have an old PII 450 with a large passive heatsink
160-256meg mem
10gig hard drive x4 (40gig)

I am very familar with WinXP, 2k, 98 etc
Somewhat familar with 2k and 2k3 server
I have attempted to use Mandrake Linux a few times on my desktop but I get frustrated with spending countless hours trying to configure the setup and give up after about a month.

What I would like to know is what OS would be good for this system?
Things to consider:
ease of setup/use
stability
software raid (could go with a raid card but trying avoid the expense. also thinking about RAID1 but the loss of half the space.. uhg)
security (already behind a firewall)
would be rarely used (once a week or so)
remote administration would be a plus
possible domain controller
possibly in the far distant future acting as a FTP server on the net
system would possibly hibernate or at least have the hard drives spin down when not being used

I have access to the MS server OS's.
If you are going to suggest Linux please include which distro you think would work best.

Thank you for your responce.
 
dark_mark said:
I would like to set up a files server at home.The wife throws a fit everytime I make changes to her system and her documents disappear. I would like to have place where all our media and docs could be stored to for sharing as well.

I have an old PII 450 with a large passive heatsink
160-256meg mem
10gig hard drive x4 (40gig)

I am very familar with WinXP, 2k, 98 etc
Somewhat familar with 2k and 2k3 server
I have attempted to use Mandrake Linux a few times on my desktop but I get frustrated with spending countless hours trying to configure the setup and give up after about a month.

What I would like to know is what OS would be good for this system?
Things to consider:
ease of setup/use
stability
software raid (could go with a raid card but trying avoid the expense. also thinking about RAID1 but the loss of half the space.. uhg)
security (already behind a firewall)
would be rarely used (once a week or so)
remote administration would be a plus
possible domain controller
possibly in the far distant future acting as a FTP server on the net
system would possibly hibernate or at least have the hard drives spin down when not being used

I have access to the MS server OS's.
If you are going to suggest Linux please include which distro you think would work best.

Thank you for your responce.
Click to expand...

you could use xp pro, as it does everything u mention.

u said u were familiar with windows already, so the ease of use/setup area is taken care of.

xp pro is a very stable os imo (linux advocates would disagree tho).

xp pro natively supports software raid via dynamic disks. u can easily setup a striped set, via the disk management console (to get redundancy though, u have to use the server os).

xp has a builtin firewall as u already know, but u might want to get additional firewall as some say its not the best in the world.

xp has remote admin via remote desktop and remote assistance. i use it when helping my gf out with her pc, and its very stable imo (cable to cable connection).

to setup a dc, ull need to install active directory (probably already knew that), so ull have to get a server os.

xp pro also has IIS which can be used as an ftp/http server. its pretty simple to setup, but i currently use serve-u as my ftp server, and have my ip address forwarded to a host name through www.no-ip.com (free service).

lastly u probably already know xp supports hibernation, standy mode, and etc.

u could use win 2k, but it doesnt natively support remote desktop (u could use terminal services tho). u could setup remote desktop from installing it from a xp cd or dling it from ms website. on the other hand, 2k pro, in my opinion, perferms better on lower spec'd systems. wouldnt recommend win9x, because its not as stable as the nt core, doesnt support software raid or ntfs, or a bunch of other things. anyways i hope this helps some
 
That is why I was thinking of 2000 or 2003 server. I am not sure if they support software raid and all the hibernation features. I have heard that linux supports software raid 5 which would be a real plus.
 
I suggest Clark Connect. It is based on RH9 and is incredibly easy to set up. You can use it as a file server, domain controller, and most everything else you said. My CC box has been up for over 200 days. As far as RAID goes, I haven't tried software RAID on it but I think it is possible. Hibernation - not sure about that one. It can be remotely managed through a web browser and the managment is really slick and easy. Check out their forums and how-to's. It really is quite easy.
 
No question, use Win2k.

I found WinXP to be slow on my 450 that I was using as a fileserver. If you've had experience with Win2k, then go with that.

Don't bother messing with linux if you just want it for a fileserver. I tried (HARD!) to get it working for two years off and on before finally giving up and going with Win2k (just got sick of the headaches trying to get anything done with it..).
 
PsychoBunny!!! said:
Don't bother messing with linux if you just want it for a fileserver. I tried (HARD!) to get it working for two years off and on before finally giving up and going with Win2k (just got sick of the headaches trying to get anything done with it..).
Click to expand...

There's a difference between using a Linux distribution that you have to tweak to make it a server and a distro that is created specifically for the task - such as Clark Connect, Smoothwall or m0n0wall. For the n00b, these distros are as simple as booting from the install CD, reading the instructions as it installs, and configuring them through a web-based application - much like you would for a SoHo router.
 
Dark_Mark,

Sounds like you could just use 2000 or XP workstation for your "server". You won't be able to do a domain controller or AD, but with the hardware specs your giving, you'd need more RAM for it to run 2K(3) server.

ne0-reloaded,

"u could use win 2k, but it doesnt natively support remote desktop (u could use terminal services tho)."

What do you think remote desktop is based off of? Terminal services is just as good and even better in 2K3.

"u could setup remote desktop from installing it from a xp cd or dling it from ms website."

You cannot download or install the server portion of remote desktop from CD or Microsoft, it's built in to XP Pro. You can only download the *client* portion which connects to a system that has Remote Desktop or Terminal Services running.
 
without a doubt win2000 pro, it has hibernation and software raid capabilities. I run 2000 exclusively.

winVNC for remote desktop and you're set.
 
The only raid capabilities Windows 2000 or XP workstations have *natively* via software is Striping. This does not offer any redundancy whatsoever therefore if you were to lose one drive, you lose everything.

Promise makes a very inexpensive (less than $100) two channel raid controller that would be far better than striping.
 
did not know that. ive never used the capabilities... and prolly never will. I prefer a hardware solution VERY much to software solutions.
 
SJConsultant said:
Dark_Mark,
ne0-reloaded,

"u could use win 2k, but it doesnt natively support remote desktop (u could use terminal services tho)."

What do you think remote desktop is based off of? Terminal services is just as good and even better in 2K3.

"u could setup remote desktop from installing it from a xp cd or dling it from ms website."

You cannot download or install the server portion of remote desktop from CD or Microsoft, it's built in to XP Pro. You can only download the *client* portion which connects to a system that has Remote Desktop or Terminal Services running.
Click to expand...

i know remote desktop is based off of terminal services, and im pretty sure he knew that, but its not the EXACT same thing (thats the point i was trying to make). i said that because using win2k might be better for his system because of its low specs, and most would agree win2k runs better.
 
ne0-reloaded said:
i know remote desktop is based off of terminal services, and im pretty sure he knew that, but its not the EXACT same thing (thats the point i was trying to make). i said that because using win2k might be better for his system because of its low specs, and most would agree win2k runs better.
Click to expand...

Hmm.... You use remote desktop client to connect to a Windows 2003 or Windows 2000 server running Terminal services.... how is that any different than Remote Desktop in XP except for the fact that in XP your limited to one connection?

Terminal Services gives the ability to remotely admin a server just as Remote Desktop does the same for XP Pro, the only difference is the newer version has an improved RDP protocol which gives it more capabilities than the Windows 2000 version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top