what setup do you use for a home fileserver?

[pembrokestephen]

Just interested to know what kind of different setups people have. There are so many different ways of doing this, and it'd be interesting to hear everyone's.

Linux box, some kind of approx 1.5GHz AMD thing, got some old SCSI disk in and a dead noisy Fujitsu 160Gb thing. I've had it over 15 years, although it's had new motherboards, processors, disks, cases, network cards, etc during that time

It's running a very hacked about Slackware: I used to be a bit of a Suse shop, then moved to Debian, got caught up in package dependency loop hell, and went "back" to Slackware (my Linux experience started with SoftLanding Systems Linux, back in the days of kernel version 0.99.something so it felt familiar).

I'm building a television/DVD/movie player box at the moment, and went for Ubuntu on that, at the urging of Ms Pembrokestephen's son, who is also a bit of a Linux dude: so far, I've found the experience an extremely positive one.

Personally, am thinking of setting up a simple fileserver to centrally store a TB of mp3s, plus other data files and photos. I'm au fait with Windows servers, using them at work, but I want to set up something CHEAP and cheerful, stable, with automatic daily backup, gargantuan disk space, but also easy to setup with minimal maintenance. Is this asking for the earth?!

I don't think so. I think you could easily stick Ubuntu on it - and it IS open source - and it'll happily share files to Windows machines via Samba. If you just want a non-secure quick'n'dirty approach, you can just mount all your shares as guest ones, no need to maintain password files, etc. I don't know what upper limits on disk size are with Linux and filesystems, but I can't imagine a terabyte would make it scream. For a fileserver, worry less about processor speed, and more about loadsa memory (good buffering), and decent motherboard/disc controller/network interface infrastructure.

I also let mine be a kind of not-actually-firewalled network firewall (complex network cabling logistics issue) that controls when the Small One can get to the intermaweb, otherwise she'd be up all night.

If it's going to go in an inhabited room, invest the money you save on not having a 92GHz HuflungDung3000 processor and blue flashing LEDS on the cooling fans in buying quiet components: disk in particular (says Owner Of A Noisy Fujitsu ), but PSU and fannage, too.

 

[jæd]

A bit of a strange set up, but it does the stuff I want. I can access the Windows machine remotely by sshing to the Ubuntu virtual and tunnelling Remote Desktop through it.

Quicker to set it up properly so you have laptop1.lazyllama.org.uk, laptop2.lazyllama.org, etc. Then tunnel via ssh to each laptop direct. That way you could avoid having to running more than one server to a box and remove inefficiencies...

Or do you mean that you control the Windows server via Remote Desktop remotely...? Sounds very inefficient... Can you not control it via command line with SSH...? If not I don't see why you just don't get rid of the Windows server. You can replace very easily with a Linux one...

 

[jæd]

I don't see why not, as long as you have 'auto-organise my library' turned off. You'd have to manually add stuff ripped in one iTunes to another iTunes' as well.

Yep... Personally I have a Mac Mini that hosts my iTunes library and this plays music to multiple Airtunes devices. (I control iTunes on the Mini via a web interface or Apple Remote Desktop) My laptop has a secondary library on its hard-disk for when I go on holiday...

And I have no idea how iTunes would cope if the drive was disconnected while running.

It asks for you to find the songs that are un-avaiable. When you re-mount the disk it will work fine.

 

[Lazy Llama]

Or do you mean that you control the Windows server via Remote Desktop remotely...? Sounds very inefficient...

Yes, remote access is via Remote desktop over ssh, because it's seure and I only have to leave the ssh port open to the outside world. It may be inefficient but it works and should be more secure than leaving RDP open to the world.

It's all set up with Bonjour/Rendezvous/ZeroConf/avahi so that names and DHCP all sort themselves out.

If not I don't see why you just don't get rid of the Windows server. You can replace very easily with a Linux one...

Well I have a linux server, it's just that it's a VM on the Windows server
There was a reason I needed it all on Windows but at the moment it escapes me... probably drivers on the motherboard I was using when I built it, or something.

 

[jæd]

Well I have a linux server, it's just that it's a VM on the Windows server
There was a reason I needed it all on Windows but at the moment it escapes me... probably drivers on the motherboard I was using when I built it, or something.

You should work in IT Mangemant... You'd go a long way...

 

[Lazy Llama]

You should work in IT Mangemant... You'd go a long way...

Well, not that far yet
From Brixton to Docklands in 15 years

 

[Xanadu]

Yes, remote access is via Remote desktop over ssh, because it's seure and I only have to leave the ssh port open to the outside world. It may be inefficient but it works and should be more secure than leaving RDP open to the world.

It's all set up with Bonjour/Rendezvous/ZeroConf/avahi so that names and DHCP all sort themselves out.


Well I have a linux server, it's just that it's a VM on the Windows server
There was a reason I needed it all on Windows but at the moment it escapes me... probably drivers on the motherboard I was using when I built it, or something.

You could set-up ssh on the windows box. Google "openssh for windows".

 

[Crispy]

There was a reason I needed it all on Windows but at the moment it escapes me... probably drivers on the motherboard I was using when I built it, or something.

This reads like a caption to one of those ultra-humourless geek cartoons, badly drawn and with a readership of 20 (including search bots)

 

[Lazy Llama]

This reads like a caption to one of those ultra-humourless geek cartoons, badly drawn and with a readership of 20 (including search bots)

I think you may have just described my life

 

[han]

here ya go... just a random sample

http://misco.co.uk/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=240516&CatId=1204

you can get cheaper

Pingu - I am assuming these are designed to be left on all the time.....and that you could have 2, backing one up to t'other?

 

[han]

Just wondering - anyone got iTunes on a server, and accessing it over a network from several different clients?

I know iTunes isn't designed to work in this way, but hey......

Or - anyone got a setup where they have an mp3 library on a central network device (eg. NAS or a server) and are accessing using different clients in different tooms?

Just doing a bit of research on this.....using iTunes over a network with multiple machines doesn't seem to be the breeze that it should be....

 

[han]

ooooh!

 

[DarthSydodyas]

Someone I know is using a media player (wireless) which access his server, but I think it uses an application to serve it. It's a little slow on cataloguing but if other media players have similar dependencies (a service to be active on the server...) I'd think twice about having different players...

I have an old pentium (pre core-duet), with 250GB SATAs and running WinXP. An overhaul is due and I'm gonna rig up something which consumes less power and boost the drives to 1TB (prob 4x). Also, OS will either be a Linux distro or Windows [something] server.

 

[Chz]

If you have a spare PC, throw some huge disks in it and run a Linux variant.

If you don't, just buy a NAS device. It's so much less fuss, draws less power, easier to set up, etc, etc.

 

[Jonti]

^^^ this ^^^ (pembroke stephen above, #31)

especially if you don't want to spend money on software, or have some old kit you can use.

I use ubuntu server (free) running samba (also free) to provide common disk space for anyone who uses my network, so they can makes backups of important work. It also makes it a cinch to share large files between different machines. MAC, MS and Linux machines can all use the facility with no trouble.

I also use ssh and rdiff-backup (again, these have no license hassles or costs) periodically to backup all my data from my main machine, and the configuration files in /etc.

To aid rebuilds, should things go badly tits up, I periodically make a listing of packages installed on the machine as well. The end result is that one can do a fairly automatic rebuild of the system. Meaning that I can simply reinstall the operating system, plus all application packages, configuration files and data.

Nice. Did I mention that free software is often better than anything you can buy?

 

[DarthSydodyas]

How do NAS's compare on network throughput compared to a desktop configuration?

 

[Chz]

Depends what you spend - it ranges from a bit slower (I think the slower ones do around 20MB/s) to quite a bit faster when you go for the multidrive configurations with onboard RAM. You'd need a RAID controller card to equal the high-end ones. But costs vary quite a bit - you can get 500GB mirrored for £150 (complete with USB ports for printer sharing and any other external drives), and you can get 1TB in RAID5 with SFTP and web access for £500+. They're all Gigabit these days, so the network is rarely the issue.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I know nothing about servers but did see that Maplin are selling a I TB USB hard drive for £120.

 

[han]

^^^ this ^^^ (pembroke stephen above, #31)


I also use ssh and rdiff-backup (again, these have no license hassles or costs) periodically to backup all my data from my main machine, and the configuration files in /etc.

That does sound excellent, Jonti

Isn't it v techie and hard to set up though? I'm a geek myself, but Linux gives me the jitters....

 

[teqniq]

Have used samba in the past, currently using nfs to share files between my linux and 'mac' box in the other room.

 

[bmd]

That does sound excellent, Jonti

Isn't it v techie and hard to set up though? I'm a geek myself, but Linux gives me the jitters....

Have you looked at freeNAS for your software?

 

[han]

No, but it looks VEEERY interesting. Thanks BMD!

 

[WWWeed]

I used freenas for a while and gave up on it because of its inherited permissions and the fact that it cant reliably deal with FAT or NTFS file systems.

What would happen is I would upload something (in this case 100's GB's of existing FAT32 DATA) and find that other users cant access it. You can set the permissions but you have to do it for each folder each time. Which is out of the question when you have 100's of directory's which are being randomly changed by random users. The only way I found around this was to give people full access which is not really what you want to do when your just letting a mate download a photo.

Freenas is great if your starting from scratch, dont need http access, and each user only needs to access their own files. In my case it was a bloody headache but I can see why its great and it made me open my eyes to some of the pros and cons of some of the solutions out there (including mine)!

It would also be worth having a look at nanonas & openfiler/

In my case I'm sticking with what I have because it does what I need well, but FreeNAS is defenantly something I will be keeping my eye on for future developments!

^^^ this ^^^ (pembroke stephen above, #31)

especially if you don't want to spend money on software, or have some old kit you can use.

I use ubuntu server (free) running samba (also free) to provide common disk space for anyone who uses my network, so they can makes backups of important work. It also makes it a cinch to share large files between different machines. MAC, MS and Linux machines can all use the facility with no trouble.

I also use ssh and rdiff-backup (again, these have no license hassles or costs) periodically to backup all my data from my main machine, and the configuration files in /etc.

To aid rebuilds, should things go badly tits up, I periodically make a listing of packages installed on the machine as well. The end result is that one can do a fairly automatic rebuild of the system. Meaning that I can simply reinstall the operating system, plus all application packages, configuration files and data.

This sounds more like the kind of thing I'm after so I think I'm going to give this a go. What is ubuntu server like for relative linux/unix n00b like me? I'd like to know about how well samba works and what the best way of remotely accessing your data over the internet would be (SFTP or SSH?)?