Server Operating Systems

Ph4lanx

Ph4lanx

Ph4lanx

Associate
Joined
19 Apr 2010
Posts
474
Location
Surrey
Right, little dilemma for you guys (Because I know you LOVE dilemmas! ;)).

I have just rebuilt some old computer parts into a semi-decent server which I want to run in a RAID1 configuration (1 OS HDD, 2x160GB HDD in RAID1, 2x500GB HDD in RAID1).

Now, my dilemma is this. The old machine ran on Windows XP. I was about to reinstall this on to the server machine (bear in mind this server is simply for home use for keeping all files centrally), then I thought about perhaps installing some proper server software such as Windows 2003 or 2008. However looking over prices, it seems quite expensive (to me as a home user), so I then started looking into Linux and running something like Ubuntu or similar.

I was wondering how difficult it was to setup and run a linux server as a non-linux literate IT person.

Would I be better off perhaps getting a second-hand licence for Windows Server 2003 or something?

Thanks for any advice!
 
What do you want the server to do?

If it's a file server, then Fedora/CentOS are very easy to set up with Samba.
 
I want the server to house the file system basically. I want 3-4 machines in the house to connect to the server via a mapped network drive so they can access stuff whenever they want. Other than that, I want the server to be reliable enough so that I can still do admin work on it (maintenance stuff) while it is serving up. Nothing strenuous :)
 
Have a go with Fedora and Samba in that case. There's even a GUI these days for configuring Samba :eek:

If that doesn't work, worst case scenario go back to Windows. :)
 
Yamahahahahaha: Home Server looks quite good! I like the full system backup function. Does it still have the ability to share files normally like a normal OS with permissions and stuff, or has it been made 'user-friendly' for home use?

daz: Thanks for the recommendation. I'll have a look at it and see if I can handle it. I've only got very limited experience with Linux, having only installed the client version of Ubuntu on an old laptop and configuring that, but I'll see how I get on.
 
Last edited:
Ph4lanx said:
Yamahahahahaha: Home Server looks quite good! I like the full system backup function. Does it still have the ability to share files normally like a normal OS with permissions and stuff, or has it been made 'user-friendly' for home use?
Click to expand...
The former. The current Windows Home Server is based on Server 2003, so it does most things that 2003 does except things like running AD and all the integrations of that.
 
Well, I tried Ubuntu Server, only to find it was command-line only, so I'm going to install normal Ubuntu tomorrow and use that instead :)
 
Will do trentlad, although bear in mind I'm a novice to Linux stuff, so this is a journey of exploration for me :)

Basically, my intention is to setup Ubuntu (GUI version) on the server, then install SAMBA and get it working on the network with the Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP machines I have here.

I'll let you know how it goes :)
 
I just installed WHS for my father (HP EX490) connecting to his 3 laptops and desktop PC. All his Laptops are running W7 and his Dell Desktop is running XP, it was an absolute doddle. Fully mapped shares on all of the machines for his work. Mum has her own mapped folder for her stuff, the family have their own folders to remotely upload family photos, and his clients have their own folders that they can remotely access with their reports and data.

It backs all of his PCs up at 6pm whilst he is having tea and it holds all of his music, which he listens to on a Logitech Squeezebox Radio.

I chose the WHS as it is low maintenance and gives him the flexibility to use it for both his consultancy business, as a repository for family photos and for streaming his media. Plus he has the peace of mind of daily backups.

I have also subscribed to McAfee Total Protection for the server as he has a diverse range of data sources.

The server also hibernates between 1am and 6am when it is not in use.

Mushii
 
I'm also a Linux novice too. So the fact that you're doing this is especially intriguing because I'd also like to set mine up on Linux.

A housemate at uni hooked up our house rather well, he networked all our computers to a server but used Windows Server 2003 and then a Linux OS for us to be able to log onto the server itself.

I'd rather a fully Linux server throughout for cost... and kudos.
 
Right, well after installing Ubuntu, my first port of call before starting to setup RAID1 was to make sure I could remote onto the server from Windows.

Turns out this isn't as easy as it seems. I've setup the right settings in Ubuntu to allow it, but every time I try and connect, it refuses the connection.

So you know what? I can't be bothered with the hassle of Linux. Despite advancements in the operating systems and how they are presented to people in a non-technical manner, you still need to fiddle WAY too much to do something simple.

I will be purchasing Home Server and running that instead. At least it works without problems.
 
I had linux running at home for my file server. I had loads of issues and i think part of my issue was im a complete windows man and have been for years. I tried for about 1 month to get shares to work and website working in Red Hat.

After that i gave up bought Windows server 2008 R2 standard and i configured everything in about half a day. Sometimes linux isnt for everyone.

I even tried it at work on one of my work PC's using Fedora but everytime my KVM swapped it would lock solid. For the life of me I had real trouble installing applications in Fedora. Put XP on no more issues.
 
I am thinking of doing the same, and I am considering using a vail trial particpiation.

Has anyone experience of the vail beta, and do you think vail launch will require full reinstall rather than upgrade when it eventually goes live?

Is it 30 day locked, or open beta?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom