I have an old Dell PowerEdge 400SC that I purchased in 2004 as a spare computer/file server. It's a 2.4GHz P4 with a gig of memory (I think). I've got 3 HDDs in there and originally was running an unlicensed copy of Windows Server 2003. I haven't used the computer since I moved to Atlanta a few years ago.

I decided to hook it up again and start using it as a backup server, and want to get rid of the OS and start new. I've always thought about trying the Linux (ubuntu maybe?) route but I've never really used it before. I've also got a legal license to XP Pro (32 & 64 bit) and Vista Ultimate (32 only, I'm using the 64 bit key on my everyday computer).

What's the best OS to go with if it's just going to be sitting in the corner hooked up to the network?

11/8/2008 9:55:51 AM

I'd go with either XP or Vista, since they'd likely bethe easiest to configure. also depends on how you plan to serve files... sftp/ftp, samba share, etc.

11/8/2008 10:19:24 AM

use a real Linux server (CentOS), ubuntu is for the kiddies.

11/8/2008 10:25:28 AM

I'm just going to be mapping them as network drives to either my PC or my Mac laptop.

What's so great about CentOS versus Ubuntu? I figured Ubuntu since it's highly supported and lots of people use it.

11/8/2008 10:30:06 AM

If you're going to be just mapping the drives, i.e. samba/windows filesharing, there's really no advantage to putting it up on Linux, aside from cost.

11/8/2008 10:44:35 AM

I use the server version of Ubuntu. The setup is just as easy XP.

Over time, it's performance and ease of use is >>>> than when I used XP as a file server.

11/8/2008 10:50:42 AM

Quote :

"use a real Linux server (CentOS), ubuntu is for the kiddies."

OMFGZ EVERYBOADY BOW TO A REAL LUNIX PROGRAMMAR


seriously, use some flavor of linux with samba

11/8/2008 11:26:58 AM

i use ubuntu server because i like how it installs no services by default

11/8/2008 12:12:11 PM

openfiler >>>> anything else suggested in this thread

11/8/2008 12:27:11 PM

one of the few times where the linux suggestion is unequivocally correct.

If you want more than file serving, Windows Home Server is an alternative option, but unless you have an xbox, and really want a lot of rich media storage and organization, it aint worth it.

11/8/2008 2:15:40 PM

what is the best way to have samba over the internet

ssh tunnel with a loopback device mayhaps?

11/8/2008 2:24:33 PM

I think I'm gonna try Ubuntu Desktop. I'm not baller enough to Ubuntu Server w/o the GUI.

I'll admit this copy of Server 2003 still runs pretty fast after 4 years. I haven't had a PC that's gone more than a year or so without reformatting I might keep it only if it could update to the next service pack

11/8/2008 2:28:06 PM

openfiler

11/8/2008 2:29:59 PM

CentOS >>> Ubuntu Server ...for a server environment.

With that opinion stated, I manage multiple CentOS servers and I haven't used Ubuntu Server in a number of iterations. However, I can promise you that CentOS will be much more stable if only because they have the backing of RedHat. Meaning of course that Red Hat Enterprise Linux stripped of its title and artwork is then CentOS. All the code is the same. I'm sure you won't have huge problems with Ubuntu Server, I mean, their job is make a stable server as well.

You'll find that the biggest differences between the two is the system files are organized and how software is installed. The core server processes that you will be running for filesharing/etc will use the exact same config files.

The choice is yours in the end, so I would highly suggest that you take a bit of time, try out CentOS and try out Ubuntu Server and figure out which one you prefer.

And, if you don't mind the cost and want Windows, then by all means go for it.

^^Good point, if you really prefer a gui, Ubuntu Server has a much better management gui.

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2008 2:30:46 PM

Quote :

"I think I'm gonna try Ubuntu Desktop. I'm not baller enough to Ubuntu Server w/o the GUI."

pansy

you are going to do more in the console than you would with the gui

i have a red hat enterprise linux box and an ubuntu server box

i have much less time invested in the ubuntu box and thats with going to the server location for hardware upgrades

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM. Reason : 

11/8/2008 2:31:35 PM

^^^^^For samba over the internet? I'd honestly suggest installing Hamachi and letting it manage your VPN, does an excellent job. Otherwise, you'll have to do as you suggested.

11/8/2008 2:35:06 PM

I guess one of the things I failed to mention was that I wanted to be able to "remote desktop" into the computer so I can make changes, whether it be RDP through Windows or VNC.

11/8/2008 2:36:12 PM

yeah, well installed winscp on my users machines and just told them to retrieve their files that way

but i was thinking, that if i can secure samba, that may be a better way

^ ssh is all you need to do that

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : 

11/8/2008 2:36:55 PM

me using commandline via ssh is like giving a child a loaded handgun. something is bound to go wrong.

here's another question. Ubuntu 8.04 or 8.10?

11/8/2008 2:39:44 PM

I had an old box with FC8 on it in the attic - I have both Macs and XP machines that connect to it. It was not all that difficult to setup. Been doing that for over 2 years now and I have not had any issues.

11/8/2008 2:44:40 PM

You should install Red Drive on their machine to get around using a separate SCP application ... it integrates FTP/SFTP into Explorer (btw it's no longer supported but is pretty damn awesome)

http://www.jscape.com/reddrive/

11/8/2008 2:47:55 PM

clearly most people in this thread just don't know what openfiler is


/thread

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 10:24:08 AM

I SAID THAT DAMMIT

lol

11/9/2008 10:55:02 AM

"most"

11/9/2008 11:35:54 AM

if you have a copy of windows lying around, use that. Otherwise any linux distro will work.

11/9/2008 1:02:34 PM

I spent a few days trying to get Linux (Ubuntu, CentOS) installed, but it never could pick up the graphics card, network card, etc.

So I went with a spare copy of XP Pro.

11/16/2008 5:18:18 PM

openfiler or freenas

11/16/2008 6:04:56 PM

^^ Really??


What Vid card, what NIC?

11/16/2008 8:12:31 PM

It's an ATI Rage (I think, at least that's the driver XP installed) and on-board Intel network card.

11/16/2008 9:57:34 PM

yeah, it should have picked both of those up

11/16/2008 10:14:36 PM

odd indeed

11/17/2008 12:28:27 AM

maybe times have changed but ati has always had complete shit for linux support. an intel nic is about as common as it gets though

11/17/2008 2:16:20 AM

e100/e1000 ftw

those drivers do not fail

11/17/2008 2:17:22 AM

Quote :

"e100/e1000 ftw those drivers do not fail"

this man speaks the truth

11/17/2008 2:24:54 AM

to be fair, I have seen an e1000 card fail once

in a PCI hot-plug compatibility test with a quad-port card, and it was due to the proprietary hot-plug logic failing to correctly probe beyond the PCI bridge chip on the card. the driver would have worked if our BIOS wasn't bugged

11/17/2008 2:46:40 AM