Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What is your preferred server OS for home use? And Why?
Stoic Joker:
Well I only started playing with Win Server OSes with Server 2008, so i guess I started from a clean slate.
-Eóin (January 04, 2011, 02:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
That can help I'd imagine, starting with 2k I didn't have to unlearn any of the NT4 stuff so it was easy to pick-up as everything was new. The term Primary Domain Controller (or PDC) is a left over from the NT4 days - You still hear people using it, but they're generally the (older) NT4 crowd - still not completely unlearned yet... :)
...and I guess I'm getting my turn at that bat now also... (hehe) ...Shit.
JavaJones:
The main differences between server and desktop OSs as I see them are:
* Built-in services - things like IIS, Active Directory, etc. (for the Windows side)
* Resource allocation/priority (as Josh said)
* Different default services - servers will often not include services (or have them disabled by default) that desktop systems use, and have other services enabled/installed that are not available or enabled by default on desktops
* More sophisticated user handling and credential management
* More sophisticated data storage management (e.g. RAID)
There are of course a few other things, but those are the majors I think.
Now the first question that springs to mind is, if you're going to be using all 3rd party services, what exactly do you want a "server OS for"? Especially Windows Server. Even for a small business, if you have less than 10 clients (at a very, very minimum) I would not recommend a Windows Server setup unless there were serious authentication/credential management and service needs.
If this is just for your home network environment, then what is driving this decision? Do you simply want a central data repository where everyone can access e.g. movies and other media? Is centralized backup a desire? Do you want to run your own mail server so that the whole family has on-site mail with central SPAM/virus filtering, unlimited mailbox size, shared calendars, etc? Essentially, as always, what problems are you trying to solve?
Personally if I had a desire to create a server (I don't, despite having 6+ systems at home and more than 20TB of data to access in a shared manner), I would probably use Linux, even though I'm not terribly familiar with it, just because I know it can cover all the services I would want without cost. If I didn't want to host my own mail or web services, I'd go with Windows Home Server. Windows Server 2008 and other business-oriented versions wouldn't really enter my mind because I have no need for Active Directory and such services, and if I want to run a web server, I want it to be LAMP anyway, not IIS.
- Oshyan
superboyac:
OK, for the sake of this discussion, let's avoid any concerns about price. Let's just assume I have an infinite amount of money and it doesn't matter what the alternatives cost. I may go with a very expensive solution simply because it means I have more buttons to pick instead of command line stuff. I'm like that. I'm VERY familiar with Windows, and while I'm not necessarily afraid of Linux (I've used it as a virtual machine), if it means I need to fiddle around more with command line stuff or text files, I'd rather not.
JJ, your assumption about my needs are pretty right on. Definitely less than 10 computers will be using the server. My main purpose is simply file storage. I want a central place to put a bunch of hard drives and access them from several machines. So, I'm talking about anywhere between 5-20 drives, and 10-20 TB of information, including double and sometimes triple redundancy. So I don't actually have that much data, but once you multiply it for the backups, I do have a lot.
The backup stuff will be handles by SFFS. These are all just file syncing, nothing more. No RAID. I want to be able to pull a drive out at anytime and use that drive's contents standalone anywhere else...so just files and folders. Some of the drives will be used to stream media, so the drives that have things like videos will be used by other computers to play them. No big deal, I think. Nothing normal OS's don't do already.
I mean, what if I just ran regular ol Windows 7 on the server machine? Would that work? Is it going to have issues with all the hard drives? I'm not going to us Linux if I have to get used to a lot of new things like a new type of file structure, command line things, different programs to learn. i have no desire for that. I'm a Windows guy, I'll stick with it until I have time to explore other options. I'm extremely good with Windows and very comfortable getting all up into it without worrying about it.
I'm not that concerned about crazy security things, like corporate level firewalls and so forth (unless I should be). I mean, I'll do it if it's relatively painless. But i don't want to buy thousands of dollars of hardware firewall equipment, and learn all the security things. I've heard that just my normal wifi router is good enough, no? I mean, I recently tried setting up an SFTP server, and I never got it working. It was a huge pain. I had no idea what the hell I was doing. I don't have the time now or later this year to learn too many new things. but I do need to do something about my storage issues, because I am full right now and I'm tired of burning DVD's and keeping track of what I'm keeping/removing/backing up. I literally spend 2-4 hours a week now just dealing with running out of space issues.
Anyway, if there is a nice Linux distro that handles this well and wouldn't require me to spend ages on Linux forums, I'd be very interested in checking it out.
JavaJones:
If the vast majority of your need is simply for data sharing and syncing, I believe a NAS-oriented solution (like FreeNAS) might be ideal. That being said, if you're most comfortable with Windows, there's no reason not to just use Windows 7 for this. It can handle the number of drives just fine (I've had up to 15 drives on a Win7 machine already), it has Library support, you can share Libraries directly, meaning you can essentially "federate" data across multiple drives into a single cohesive presentation and then share it. Being Windows, you can use all the tools you're already familiar with. It won't include extraneous web server, mail server, and active directory type stuff, which are all services you won't (as far a I understand) need and will just be there for no reason. Regular Windows Homegroup sharing should provide sufficient access control and ease of use, especially vs. e.g. Active Directory.
Security should not be an issue as long as you're using appropriate encryption on your wireless (WPA2), and you do not share files with "Everyone" but rather have user names, passwords, and appropriate logins and permissions on each machine for the central share(s). This is fairly easy to setup, and will provide another layer of security should a casual snooper happen to get in to your network (say a friend who comes over who you give the wireless key to).
All in all I think Windows Server is overkill and you should be looking at either a NAS-in-a-box type prebuilt Linux distro, or Windows 7. Probably the latter given your inexperience and level of comfort with Linux, plus the fact that you want to run your own familiar sync software.
- Oshyan
superboyac:
Thanks JJ, that's exactly what I was looking for. If what you say is true, I'm very happy with that setup and would not be nervous about diving into it right now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version