How to setup a Linux File Server

[jerry]

Just got assigned a Project "Setting up a File Server in Linux" and I have to 3 weeks to complete it. I searched on Google and didnt get any good results. Anybody have an idea how to go about doing this ?

Thanks

[Fredde87]

what kind of fileserver? Like samba (for windows)? Just setup a distro with networking support and install (if not included) samba....

[jerry]

  Fredde87 said:

what kind of fileserver? Like samba (for windows)? Just setup a distro with networking support and install (if not included) samba....

584830264[/snapback]

As simple as that ?

Do I have to turn off the GUI by editing the configuration text file to boot up in runlevel 3 ???

[Emon]

  jerry said:

As simple as that ?

Do I have to turn off the GUI by editing the configuration text file to boot up in runlevel 3 ???

584830279[/snapback]

what kind of distro are you using ?!? :blink: it boots up directly to a GUI ??

[jerry]

I havent decided on the distro yet.

I want it to be as efficient as possible so turning off the GUI will help preserve the resources right ? Also Windows v Linux File Server benches or speed comparisions would be handy if somebody know of something on those lines.

edit: Something like this ...

If its more recent like Red Hat 9.0 v Windows Server 2003

[markwolfe Veteran]

You will find conflicting results in testing. For example:

http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/first-nts4rhlinux.html favors Windows

and

http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html favors Linux/Samba

Most of the "Windows is better" results are off Microsoft-commisioned tests, where MS specs out how the machines are set up (often using known configs that are unfavorable on Linux). The independant ones generally use standard/typical configs for eash OS and test off of that.

As for a GUI, no you don't need to install any X Window system on your box. No Window Managers, either (obviously, if you don't have X capability). Reducing the number of installed packages will make your Linux box more secure (less items to be vunerable to exploit) and run faster (less items! :p ). You can manage the server remotely via command-line (via ssh), or by GUI (via webmin and using a web browser on your remote PC).

It would be interesting to grab an old PC ('386 or '486 if you have one) and set up a file server on both with current OS releases from a Linux distro and off of current Windows release and do your own comparison. :yes: Post your results here, if you can. (Y)

EDIT: Quote from a recent news article (dated yesterday!) on the Samba comparisons:

  Quote

Novell's Hogan says that Microsoft has often specified the exact system configuration in benchmark tests. For example, in two Veritest studies which compare Windows 2003 Server with Linux, Hogan asserts that Veritest fine-tuned the Windows set-up but did not do the same for Linux.

"The test used Windows protocols only, while Linux had to emulate the Windows protocols using Samba," says Hogan. "As far as we can see, the testers did not even make the smallest optimisation for this Linux/Samba setting, while Microsoft helped Veritest fine tune on Windows."

[Zerosleep]

Why use a GUI to run a server? I have a box in the corner, and it's only plugged into two things: power and the net. If I wanna do something on it, ssh comes in handy.

[Emon]

  jerry said:

I havent decided on the distro yet.

I want it to be as efficient as possible so turning off the GUI will help preserve the resources right ? Also Windows v Linux File Server benches or speed comparisions would be handy if somebody know of something on those lines.

584830320[/snapback]

I'd use Gentoo if I were you. I setup a secure ftp server for my web server class in only 3 steps.

1. Installed Gentoo.

2. Created the user accounts.

3. Put sshd on the run level.

thats all I had to do.

Now users can ssh to my box( using putty ) if they need to change password and stuff. And they can use any ftp client that can support file transfer over SFTP.

WinSCP is pretty nice .. I think FileZilla supports SFTP also (so does DreamWeaver's buitin FTP feature )

[mercuryx013]

You can opt to not install the GUI when you are setting up the system. If doing Redhat/Fedora (which is what I would suggest you use) make sure to deselect GNOME, KDE, and X Windows.

[jerry]

Thanks for all the help (Y) Appreciate it :)

Looks like I am set for the next couple of weeks. Will post back with my progress. Thanks again. :)

[MrA]

Like others have said, you don't need a gui (i.e. you don't need X, GNOME, KDE, etc). This being said, you can still graphically configure samba using SWAT (samba web admin tool).

[Fredde87]

I would get core linux (which is just the basic linux) and install samba... then you have just what you need and nothing else....