Forums › General Discussion ›

File Server: Windows vs Linux

Submitted by Mike Serafin on July 17, 2009 - 12:44pm
File Server: Windows vs Linux

Hi everyone,

We are implementing a new file server and I'm exploring different options. The machine will have 1TB of available storage, in a RAID 1 configuration, possibly using the UTORrecover service. Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, Intel gigabit ethernet, etc. There will be roughly 60 users.

I'm putting together a document outlining pros and cons of using Windows Storage Server 2003 (in particular this solution from Dell or Linux, Debian or Ubuntu, and Samba.

I have some experience with running a Samba box, but none whatsoever with Windows Storage Server. I'm looking for opinions, pros and cons, of either of these two solutions. Even better would be some thoughts from anyone who has used both extensively.

I think I know what I would pick, but it would be useful to hear other opinions. :)

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Your rating: None
‹ Idea: Forum organization / subforums Geeks to help admins? ›
Tags:
  • Login to post comments
  • 762 reads
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Send to friend

ZFS

Rouben's picture
Submitted by Rouben on July 20, 2009 - 4:27pm.

Linux is not the only option...

If you want something more robust (but still cheap) I suggest looking into NexentaStor. This is basically a custom OpenSolariis distribution with a proprietary web-based control panel. Anything that runs OpenSolaris should be supported by these folks. It's not free (as in freedom and beer), but it is dirt cheap compared to traditional SAN/NAS vendors' prices.

Or if you want something really free (as in freedom and beer) and virtually maintenance free, check out FreeNAS. The current RC has minimal ZFS support. This one is an embedder flavour of FreeBSD with a tiny footprint, suitable for deployment on a USB flash card or even a SD/CF card.

If all you're looking for is a file server, I'd pick the above instead of a Windows (or any other OS) plain vanilla server. There's just too much maintenance overhead running a fully-fledged server for just file serving.

Thanks. I have looked at

Submitted by Mike Serafin on July 21, 2009 - 1:09pm.

Thanks. I have looked at FreeNAS before and wanted to play with it in a virtual environment but never got around to it. I'd love to explore and play different options, but I need to get this up before September, so I think I've narrowed it down to these two.

data

darko's picture
Submitted by darko on July 21, 2009 - 11:13am.

might also want to look at what data you anticipate will be on it and file system limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

Filesystems

Rouben's picture
Submitted by Rouben on July 21, 2009 - 12:03pm.

Filesystems are important, but generally with tweaking almost any filesystem can be adjusted to whatever needs you have.

Having said this, I have a soft spot for ZFS, because you can do this tweaking (e.g. block sizes) dynamically, without reformatting, and on a per-directory basis (not sure about that last one).

ext3

Submitted by Mike Serafin on July 21, 2009 - 1:14pm.

I'll probably be using good ole ext3. All our requirements fit with it.