Linux for network server

I am researching what would be a good Linux for a server for our network. The computer would be used mainly for a file server. We have 10 computers on our network, so it looks like we have reached the limit for a peer to peer network with Windows XP pro.

I would like to try not to use Windows software because of having to buy licenses for each computer we have, or add in the future. We really just want a file server that is reliable. Is Linux a good option? Or is the learning curve more than I want to get into? Which version does what we want? Mostly I would hope this computer would just sit and run for days on end without having anything done to it. I would only need to know what it would take to use it as a file server.

Would Linux take care of the 10 computer limit on the network. That is something I don't understand very well. Why the limit exists, and why does having a server fix that. Are there certain versions that do that?

TIA,

Jim

 

Any of the "Main Stream" Linux distributions will do what you want. CentOS, SuSe, and Debian Linux distributions will come with all the software you need to setup a file server.

Debian can be a little daunting to setup if you don't have much experience with Linux. CentOS is a clone of Redhat Enterprise Linux. You may also want to consider Ubuntu Linux.

What you want is a Samba File Server, as you will want to maintain all your Windows Workstations and connect them to the file server. There is no practical limit on the number of clients connected to the server.

Yes there is a bit of a learning curve with Linux.

 

Thanks for the info. I was thinking of downloading one of those versions of Linux to try out on my home computer. Maybe set up a dual boot to see if I can figure things out before I try to set up a file server.

Is there any way to keep things simple to ease the learning curve? I think of it as a challenge. I'm sure I can figure it out eventually. Just depends on the amount of time required. I enjoy this kind of stuff

 

CentOS has a SERVER CD, that just has the software needed for setting up a server. You can setup any of the following servers: Apache, DNS, FTP, Mail, NFS, and Samba.

If you are going to dual-boot see: Configuring A Dual-Boot Windows2000/XP & Linux System. It's a good article to read. Any of the newer Linux distributions, handle dual-boot configuration pretty seamlessly. However, they re-write the boot sector; making it a little more difficult to undo the dual-boot configuration.

This article was written for Debian GNU/Linux but with minor changes will work on any Linux Distro. http://www.aboutdebian.com/lan.htm scroll down to [FONT=arial,sans serif,helvetica]Setting Up A Samba Server.[/FONT]

 

I strongly suggest using Debian, as in the long run it's much easier to administrate. Plus CentOS kinda sucks for security. You will need to learn how to use it properly first though - but once you do you'll find that it's a joy to use. On the other hand if you don't bother to learn how to use it you'll get frustrated and end up buying Windows all over again.

 

Clue me in Goldy. CentOS being a nearly verbatim clone of RHEL, all trademarks and logos removed; implies that RHEL's security sucks.

 

I was looking into Debian and there seems to be more info on-line to help me out. I haven't been to all the sites that came up when I Googled, but it was looking good. I think I'll set it up on an old computer to see how it goes before buying a new computer and trying it. I have only set up a peer to peer network and I don't know how much I really don't know yet.

 

Please keep us posted...I'm thinking of doing the same thing, but would love to have you lead the way.

 

What about SUSE Linux? After reading "The Easiest Linux Guide You'll Ever Read" by Scott Morris that sounds easy enough. Then just adding Samba.

Where can I find out the minimum requirements for the necessary computer to run Linux on? We have an 800Mhz computer here I might practice setting it up on.

 

The Minimum System requirements vary from distro to distro. 800mhz is plenty of horsepower to run Linux. How much system Ram to you have installed?

 

128MB Ram. Computer has two 40GB hard drives.

Is it possible to set up a dual boot, one from each hard drive, and would that make it any easier to uninstall Linux later?

The hard drives weren't fast enough to make it a file server, so I will be getting something new one of these days.

 

128mb of Ram is on the low side. The system will load with a GUI; but it is going to be slow and swap quite a bit. You really want 512mb or better.

Using 2 hard drives is the preferred dual-boot setup, but the boot sector of the boot drive, which is drive 0 (drive c), will be re-written during installation. Unless you specify that the boot manager be installed on the boot partition of the Linux drive. This will leave NTLDR in control of the boot process. To configure NTLDR for dual-boot of Windows/Linux see the article I linked to earlier on dual-boot configuration.

 

> To configure NTLDR for dual-boot of Windows/Linux see the article I linked to earlier on dual-boot configuration.

I've been reading what you linked to before: Configuring A Dual-Boot Windows2000/XP & Linux System. But I don't see anything about the NTLDR. If it's not blatantly obvious, I would miss it I'm pretty new to this.

I might not understand it all until I try it. I'm tempted to try it on this, my home computer yet.

Thanks for all the help.

 

NTLDR is the boot manager for Windows NT systems, such as Windows 2000 and Windows XP. The boot.ini is the configuration file for NTLDR. The article talks you through using the bootpart utility and how to modify the boot.ini to configure NTLDR for dual-boot.

If the OS installed on this computer isn't Windows 2000 or XP, then you can ignore the instructions. Undoing the boot sector rewrite is simple on DOS based Operating Systems. Simply boot with the Startup disk and issue the command FDISK /MBR at the DOS prompt to rewrite the boot sector. This will allow Windows 95/98/ME to boot normally without the Linux Boot Manager loading at system start.

 

Thanks, it's a Win98 machine. I hope to get to it next week when I might find some time.

 

The memory issues can be gotten around a bit with doing an Ubuntu LAMP server. It has no GUI so 192 meg of memory will work.

And if it is to be a full time server, I would just go with a straight up linux server and be done with it.

 

What do you mean by just a straight up Linux server? Which version would that be? Would it have no GUI and be harder to learn to use? Ideally all I would need to do is start it up and let it run forever using it as a file server.

We will be buying a computer with plenty of memory and fast hard drives to make into the file server.

 

There would be no GUI, you'd have to do all the configuration from the command line; and if you aren't familiar with the tools used to edit configuration files, you are in for a steep learning curve. The learning curve is going to be steep enough already.

After you get the server configured and started you will be able to let it run for weeks with the minimum of maintenance.

 

That's what I was thinking. I would rather a GUI. Sometimes I read things and it doesn't sound so bad, then I read things and I wonder if I will figure it out. Like editing files to make it do things. Maybe there's enough info on line that I can copy and past what needs to be added to files. I just don't know what I will do if my file doesn't look at all like the one on line in some of the info. I'll have to just go through it to find out.

 

Hi there jallenaz, I was just reading through some more linux guides online and remebered your thread when I came across this link >>
http://www.reallylinux.com/docs/sambaserver.shtml
It is titled "Linux in a Windows Network with SAMBA", it appears that its focus is on Fedora Linux but maybe it can be helpful to you somehow.

 

Rather than setting up dual boot, you might want to consider using vmware-server. they have versions for both a windows host and a linux host. I am using the version for a Linux host and running a windows virtual machine. You could use the server version for a windows host and work with the various linux distros in a virtual machine on your windows host.

I think this would be safer for your windows system rather the dual-boot, which can screw things up good if you dont have all of your ducks lined up in a row.

if things get screwed up in a virtual machine,just delete it and start again -- safer and easier than having to repair a windows system

Oh, and better yet, vmware server is Free


(i am running linux on a 3ghz intel processor with windows on a virtual machine with linux as the host)

 

The implication was intentional

RHEL's security does suck - but mainly due to the fact the packages are insecure by default rather than anything else. Also they don't seem to be maintained quite as well as other distros so far as patches go. Although Debian does lag behind on package releases in stable, their security patches seem to be quicker than most.

The result of this means that there are an awful lot of CentOS installs with out of date unpatched software which is set up on defaults. Just take a look at a the exploit sites (which I won't mention here) and you'll see plenty of exploits which work on current RH and derivatives.

Also, if you look into compromised spammer and phishing servers you'll see a lot of them are RHEL derivatives. That's purely anecotal evidence, though - since there are a lot of boxes which match that description out there generally.

 

Redhat Enterprise Linux is the dominant OS in the Linux field. So, it stands to reason that it would be running on the largest percentage of servers. Some of the more popular Redhat based distro's being Fedora Core, CentOS, White Box, Madriva, Trustix, ASPLinux. and Ark Linux; increase that percentage greatly.

It stands to reason that Redhat systems would have the largest percentage of compromised servers. Debian may come out of the box just a tad bit more secure then Redhat, but the system will still need to be hardened before it is put online.

Linux servers suffer from the same problem as Windows servers, and that is a "Lazy Admin." They can't be bothered to keep the system patched and up2date. They turn off the outbound protection of the firewall because they believe it's too much of a PITA to configure the firewall settings. They fail to disable "root" login and don't configure sudo correctly... I could go on and on. Utilities such as Bastille were created for the explicit purpose of hardening the system before it is put online.

Redhat averages 48 hours from vulnerability release/publish date to patch release date. CentOS is usually 1 day behind that, since they have to sanitize the Redhat package before it is released. All the distro's are dependent upon how quickly the developer of the package, in question, fixes the flaw and releases the updated source code.

If a flaw/vulnerability effects Redhat, I can assure you that it will effect just about every distribution in production. Rarely will you come across an exploit that effects only one distribution.

Microsoft won't even acknowledge a vulnerability in Windows within 48 hours of vulnerability release/publish date. Let alone release a patch within that time.

 

dont use vmare for a simple fileserver way unneeded. and with your older hardware currently, just gonna make things difficult now.

 

Colemanguy,

I can see that. I've been messing around with it just to learn a little about linux. But it seems to only complicate everything just trying to set up the vmware to run. I bought a couple of books to help me get started. Then I will set up Linux in the old computer as the only OS for practice.

Thanks,

Jim