The best file system...

[Journer]

What do you think is the best file system...ehh and OS for file serving...

 

[drag]

No brainer. Ext3 and Debian Stable.

Nothing remarkable is usually needed. Usually the network is the limitation.

 

[Journer]

ok...lets complicate it a bit more ...

all that ...annnnnnddd...

ability to run torrents (just about any OS..) so i would say which performs runnings torrents better?
ease of installizing and operation of powerfull FTP (i know it depends more upon the program...but sometimes it is a bitch (at least for me) to get one installed and running under debian, in the past that is)
ease of networking with other operating systems (windows and mac osx)
ease of installing codecs and reliable video players (VLC > all others)
ease of isntallation and management as a router (traffic shaping, NAT, etc.)
ease of installation as a web server
ease of installtion as a DNS
etc..lol

haha...i suppose my file server does more than serve files...oh well

ive been thinking about migrating over to fedora...but cant make up my mind on wether i want to do what or stick with server 2003...
ive used debian before but it was a pain in the ass to install and i never could get some of the apps i needed to work :'(
me=dodo bird

 

[networkman]

I refuse to vote on this one as it depends on the needs of the users on your network.

Each file system and server type has its own strengths and weaknesses, which need to be considered in light of what clients are going to be accessing them.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: networkman
I refuse to vote on this one as it depends on the needs of the users on your network.

Each file system and server type has its own strengths and weaknesses, which need to be considered in light of what clients are going to be accessing them.

Indeed, there's no "best".

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Journer
ok...lets complicate it a bit more ...

all that ...annnnnnddd...

ability to run torrents (just about any OS..) so i would say which performs runnings torrents better?

Debian does a pretty good job. Haven't noticed any problems with performance of torrents on my desktop.. using Azurus to do torrents on my fileserver via sshfs.

ease of installizing and operation of powerfull FTP (i know it depends more upon the program...but sometimes it is a bitch (at least for me) to get one installed and running under debian, in the past that is)

FTP is best avoided except for anonymous downloads.

The reason you have a hard time under Debian is probably because by default most ftp servers (of which are several) have configurations that don't allow them to do much.

There is a hell of a lot more going on in ftp then just file downloads and uploads. Things can get hairy. It's not a simple thing to setup.

Such as give me any insecure ftp server and I'll show you how to run scripts on it to do pretty much anything I want. Give me any secure FTP server and I show you how to sniff the network to get any and all the names of the users and their passwords as they log into it.

ease of networking with other operating systems (windows and mac osx)

Samba probably would work out better for cross platform systems then just a Windows server.

ease of installing codecs and reliable video players (VLC > all others)

VLC is easily aviable as are codecs via third party repositories. Try apt-get.org.

ease of isntallation and management as a router (traffic shaping, NAT, etc.)

That's never easy unless your using a distro specificly setup to do that.
Also it's foolish to use a file server as a firewall. One is ment to protect the other, not be the other.
For a dedicated firewall with nice web gui, nat capabilities, traffic shaping, VPN capabilities, and numerious third party add-ons I like to use IPcop. It is a VERY capable router/firewall distro.

ease of installation as a web server

Debian is king on web servers.
Do you take your apache version 1.xx or version 2.xx? Would you like some Drupal with that, or just your standard Perl packages? You have about 3 or 4 CMS aviable. Anything you want. MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird. Development tools also.
The possibilities and combinations of packages are endless and they pretty much all just work.

ease of installtion as a DNS

apt-get install bind

etc..lol

haha...i suppose my file server does more than serve files...oh well

ive been thinking about migrating over to fedora...but cant make up my mind on wether i want to do what or stick with server 2003...
ive used debian before but it was a pain in the ass to install and i never could get some of the apps i needed to work :'(
me=dodo bird

They probably wouldn't be easier to work under Fedora. Debian has extensive documentation on each package you install in /usr/share/doc/<packagename>/

Some things, such as MySQL allowing to access from the network are disabled by default. Such debian-specific modifications are documented.

But you use whatever you comfortable with. If you like Fedora then use that instead. There is no intrinsic superiority with Debian that would make it compelling enough to use if you dislike it.

 

[drag]

If you want something that is pre-setup to do about 95% of what you stated take a look at clarkconnect server and gateway appliance distro.

Their home edition is aviable at no-cost and is open source.
http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/compare.php

 

[n0cmonkey]

I wish I could answer this, but I could only answer the question: "What OS/FS would you use for a home server for you?"

 

[Rilex]

Originally posted by: Journer

ease of networking with other operating systems (windows and mac osx)

Windows. By far, OS X has less problems with Windows than it does various versions of Samba. Should note that OS X's Samba is a complete hack that has made it incompatible with certain other versions of Samba (though typically these issues are corrected in the next Samba rev for other OSes).

ease of isntallation and management as a router (traffic shaping, NAT, etc.)

ISA 2006 is pretty dang easy to set up, if that counts. It doesn't do traffic shaping, though. And the built-in QoS only applies to HTTP traffic (where's VoIP, Microsoft?!).

ease of installation as a web server

Windows. By far. It is a point and click, or scripted affair.

ease of installtion as a DNS

Again, Windows by far. The configuration is made dead-simple and for those who are CLI challeneged, there are no confusing text (zone) files that need to be created.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rilex

ease of installation as a web server

Windows. By far. It is a point and click, or scripted affair.

Assuming the system is freshly installed all I need to do is: /usr/sbin/apachectl start

 

[xtknight]

Fedora Core 5 (easy to use) and ext3 (reliable journalized operating system).

 

[Rilex]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Rilex

ease of installation as a web server

Windows. By far. It is a point and click, or scripted affair.

Assuming the system is freshly installed all I need to do is: /usr/sbin/apachectl start

Assuming someone CLI-challeneged can even find the executable. Lets not leave out any further configuration.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rilex
Assuming someone CLI-challeneged can even find the executable. Lets not leave out any further configuration.

If they installed an operating system, they can run a simple command on the command line. apachectl is well documented in the apache documentation.

No further configuration necessary for basic usage, other than loading your HTML files.

 

[Rilex]

IIS is still even more simple than that -- the service is started for you

One can install Linux and not know where to go from there, I've seen it

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rilex
IIS is still even more simple than that -- the service is started for you

Icky. Starting a critical and often vulnerable service should require some knowledge. And IIS shouldn't be starting by default on all Windows installs. That's just scary.

One can install Linux and not know where to go from there, I've seen it

Then they haven't done enough research into the platform.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Rilex

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Rilex

ease of installation as a web server

Windows. By far. It is a point and click, or scripted affair.

Assuming the system is freshly installed all I need to do is: /usr/sbin/apachectl start

Assuming someone CLI-challeneged can even find the executable. Lets not leave out any further configuration.

So reading documentation is actually the most challenging part of server maintenance?

 

[Rilex]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Rilex
IIS is still even more simple than that -- the service is started for you

Icky. Starting a critical and often vulnerable service should require some knowledge. And IIS shouldn't be starting by default on all Windows installs. That's just scary.

Since deploying a firewall is part of "best practice", if IIS needs to be patched or further configured, you just don't open the port in the firewall until you're ready. Either that or deploy Service Packs (e.g. XP SP2 or 2003 SP1) before loading IIS so it is patched "out of the box" from the past major worm issues (only applies to IIS5...).

Then they haven't done enough research into the platform.

Like I said, some people are CLI challeneged. Microsoft does make it easier, there is no denying that.

 

[Journer]

cool...thanks for the info everyone
i see how it could be stupid to have your servers be the same machine as firewall...so clark connect is looking pretty damn schweet....i'm still doing some searching and trying to find out what i want to do for sure...i'm about to finish building another box and ill probably use it to install debian or fedora and see how i like it...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Rilex

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Rilex

ease of installation as a web server

Windows. By far. It is a point and click, or scripted affair.

Assuming the system is freshly installed all I need to do is: /usr/sbin/apachectl start

Assuming someone CLI-challeneged can even find the executable. Lets not leave out any further configuration.

So reading documentation is actually the most challenging part of server maintenance?

Actually... Yes. That usually is very difficult for some people to do.

And beleive me nowadays if you want to run Apache without ever using a command line it is very possible. Both Ubuntu and especially Fedora has little gui doo-dads were you can do your point and click thing. Start and stop services, install software, punch holes in your firewall. That sort of thing.

Although command line is still much better for administration and at one point you'd still probably have to edit a config or two to get it to do exactly what you want.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Rilex

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Rilex
IIS is still even more simple than that -- the service is started for you

Icky. Starting a critical and often vulnerable service should require some knowledge. And IIS shouldn't be starting by default on all Windows installs. That's just scary.

Since deploying a firewall is part of "best practice", if IIS needs to be patched or further configured, you just don't open the port in the firewall until you're ready. Either that or deploy Service Packs (e.g. XP SP2 or 2003 SP1) before loading IIS so it is patched "out of the box" from the past major worm issues (only applies to IIS5...).

Then they haven't done enough research into the platform.

Like I said, some people are CLI challeneged. Microsoft does make it easier, there is no denying that.

So does a number of Linux distros that are tailored towards the CLI impaired, and I think it's a retarded idea on either platform.
Someone who doesn't know what he's doing has no business setting up a webserver, be it Linux, Windows, or any other OS, period, end of.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rilex
Since deploying a firewall is part of "best practice", if IIS needs to be patched or further configured, you just don't open the port in the firewall until you're ready. Either that or deploy Service Packs (e.g. XP SP2 or 2003 SP1) before loading IIS so it is patched "out of the box" from the past major worm issues (only applies to IIS5...).

Are we talking about best practices following admins or newbies? I'm confused.

Like I said, some people are CLI challeneged. Microsoft does make it easier, there is no denying that.

I can deny it constantly and truthfully. Microsoft does not make "it" easier. For me.

 

[Rilex]

Are we talking about best practices following admins or newbies? I'm confused.

Newbies shouldn't follow best practice?

I can deny it constantly and truthfully. Microsoft does not make "it" easier. For me.

Hate to say it, but if Linux/UN*X is easier /for you/, then you're in a vast minority.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rilex

Are we talking about best practices following admins or newbies? I'm confused.

Newbies shouldn't follow best practice?

They should, but if they can't read the most basic of documentation how are they going to read the (typically technically advanced) best practices documentation?

I can deny it constantly and truthfully. Microsoft does not make "it" easier. For me.

Hate to say it, but if Linux/UN*X is easier /for you/, then you're in a vast minority.

Why do you hate to say it? I don't hate to live it.

 

[jimbob200521]

I prefer NTFS for a file system and Fedora Core for an OS on a file server.

 

[thesix]

Have you been living under a rock? Ten reasons to reformat your hard drives.