Lightweight file server suggestions....?

[John Collier]

I have a small box at home that I was using as a file server using Fedora Core 3. Long ago, something went wrong with the OS and I simply never got around to repairing it (it was also my sandbox in my early stages of learning Linux).

If memory serves me correctly, the box has a 400 Celeron processor and about 96 Meg of RAM, a 17.2 Gig HDD, and a CDROM drive. Basically it would run the full Gnome GUI way back when, but nothing happened quickly...

Now I want to do the file server thing on a little more serious level and I am coming to the most diverse user base I know of to ask for suggestions on distros to use.

I will entertain any and all suggestions, but I do request that you qualify your suggestion with your reasoning behind it. In your opinion, what makes your suggestion the best?

Just to let you know up front, this will be contained in a private LAN (therefore needing no firewall) and will have mainly F7 Linux boxes connecting to it via NFS. It will, however, have to occasionally entertain the latest Redmond Virus (AKA - Vi$ta) and possibly a brush or two with WinXP, so I am fairly sure that SAMBA will be required {sigh}.

My background is primarily with Fedora, so I am very familiar, and comfortable, with the RPM-based distros. However, for this project I will look at all of them. As long as the learning curve is not too steep, I would be willing to try something new.

I thank you all for your input on this subject even before you get started. I have no doubt that the suggestions will be many and great!



PS. Bunny(s) rewarded at thread closure, not before (check my record if you have any concerns about whether or not I will assign points).

[Ivan Ferreira]

I would go for CentOS instead of Fedora because the release frecuency is more controlated and you will have updates for more time.

See also OpenFiler:

http://www.openfiler.com/

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

Several good suggestions.

Fedora Core 7. Excellent choice, you are familiar with it. The system gets updates for problems rapidly from yum. NFS and Samba are absolutely no problem.

Centos 4 update 5.

Solid. Enterprise Linux. More stable than Fedora. All the same features. Perhaps less bleeding edge than Fedora. Also can totally be updated and managed by yum. Note if you ever want to cluster, cluster patch releases for RHCS are not being coordinated with the main repository which makes RHCS a pain to run on Centos 4 update 5.

Ubuntu.

Debian based, excellent front end. apt-get for managing applications and update. Server version does all the things the above do, and the hardware support, especially wireless is stronger than the two OS' listed above. Fiesty 7.04 is my choice here.

SEP

[Heironimus]

You can use whatever makes you happy - all the major distributions will support NFS and Samba. If you like the Red Hat way of doing things then CentOS (or one of the other RHEL derivatives) is a good choice, as long as you don't feel like you need the very newest versions of all your software. Fedora is a bit of a testing ground for technologies before they go in to RHEL, so your Fedora knowledge should carry over pretty well.

I prefer Debian and Slackware over Red Hat, but that's just based on my personal experiences. Red Hat has improved a lot in recent years, you'll probably be fine with CentOS.

By the way, if you're using new enough clients and servers you might want to use Samba for the Linux systems as well. Newer versions of CIFS and Samba support extensions to provide more NFS-like, UNIX-friendly functionality on CIFS mounts.

[Rob Leadbeater · Accepted solution]

Hi John,

If you're looking at using your existing hardware then you may well be limited by some of the previous suggestions...

For exmaple, Fedora 7 requires a minimum of 128MB of RAM:

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f7/en_US/sn-ArchSpecific.html#sn-ArchSpecific-x86-hw

Of course, RAM upgrades are a lot cheaper now than they used to be !

Hope this helps,

Regards,

Rob

[dirk dierickx]

CentOS, based on RHE, clearly the best choice. The latest release will be supported at least until 2013 or something like that. Fedora will last you 1.5 years and then you need to upgrade to stay secure.

if you are willing to step away from RH, debian stable for a server is an excellent choice. i suggest debian before ubuntu on the server for the same reasons as CentOS vs Fedora.

[John Collier]

Ivan,

I really expected Steven to be the first one to suggest CentOS.

Based on your entry, I have to ask a question -- Since this is a home application and not a corp. one, what do you see the major benefits to a longer update schedule to be?

As for the OpenFiler option, I have been poking around their web site a bit and I think that it definitely has potential, but I'm wondering if it might not be a little too robust for a) my current household needs and/or b) my current knowledge level.

I have not ruled it out completely, but I have to admit that I am not all that comfortable with what I have read so far.

Steven,

F7 is obviously one of the options I have already considered. After all, I have it on my Notebook Computer and it has done wonders for me in that environment. I could have simply gone that direction and never even posted this question. Of course, I have to admit that I have never tried a simple text only server-optimized load of any Fedora release up until now. I suppose I could use that justification alone to say that I am expanding my knowledge by staying with a distro I know, but an install I do not. Hmm....

I have commented on CentOS already. Moving on...

Ubuntu is a new direction for me and I understand that it is currently 'all the rage', but since this is a tiny little box I really am not looking for all of the whistles and bells that I understand make all of the current teenagers swoon over it (looks like you are still at least young art heart, huh?). I'm not ruling it out mind you, but I am more interested in the ease of use for the command line/SSH interface than I am in a pretty. I do hope I have not misunderstood what you were trying to tell me here.

Heironimus,

I am aware that most of the Linux distros will accomplish my goals. I am also rather familiar with the fact that there are many, many RHEL derivatives out that I could choose from. I do, however, have to admit my ignorance when it comes to exactly which ones are based on RHEL other than CentOS and Fedora. I think I remember hearing that Mandrake (or whatever it is being called this month) is loosely RHEL based as well, but don't hold me to that (unless I am correct!)

You are not the first to mention Debian (if you count Ubuntu as a Debian suggestion, that is) and I have already stated that I would be willing to consider it. Of course, a few more points on the benefits would be appreciated if you are willing to provide them.

You are the first to bring up Slackware. While I have heard of it many times, I have to admit my ignorance when it comes to the details. Why would one consider it over the others mentioned so far? What would the learning curve to someone such as myself be? Other than the obvious perk of learning another version of Linux, what other benefits would you say I would gain by going with Slackware?

As for the suggestion to use Samba for all of my clients, I will keep that suggestion in mind, but I have to admit that I strongly prefer to go with the NFS mounts at this time. I do appreciate you bringing the improvements to my attention, though.


Rob,

You are completely correct about my intention to use the existing hardware. I know I can find some distro out there that will let me do so (even if I have to resort to DSL).

I have to thank you for bringing the new requirements for F7 to my attention. I admit that I did not remember reading that text only required 128 MB of RAM. Since I have no intentions of spending more $$ on such an old box, it looks as if I will need to consider something very different.


Dirk,

You may have just addressed the question I asked Ivan up front. If I can keep my current HW until 2013 (baring failure, of course) then that is a definite plus. Of course, I have no clue what the min requirements for CentOS are right now. I will have to go look that one up after I post this.

Debian seems to keep popping in as a suggestion. Since it seems to be a reoccurring theme, I have to admit that my curiosity is rising. Would you be willing to expand on your reasoning as I have asked others to do?



For the record, I want to restate and clarify to all that I am not totally stuck on an RHEL based release. If I were, I would have worded my question much differently.

If it were not for the perceived time investment involved with Gentoo, I would even consider it as a possibility. Of course, they make it sound like I could be investing weeks in getting a working file server up and running, which makes me shy away from it. :-/

This is why I came to an open, diverse user base such as the ITRC Forums in the first place. I am interested in what others suggest and why.

[Heironimus]

I think the other two big RHEL clones are "White Box Enterprise Linux" and "Scientific Linux". I'm inclined to recommend CentOS over those because it seems to be more widely used. Fedora isn't based on RHEL, it's actually close to being the other way around - technologies are tested and developed in Fedora and migrated to RHEL after Red Hat is confident in them. There used to be a lot more distributions that started out as Red Hat clones back in the pre-RHEL days, but most of those seem to have either died off or gone to Fedora. I'd recommend CentOS over RHEL for you because you'd have to pay for a contract on RHEL to get updates, but I'd be more likely to use Fedora over a Fedora-clone (no good reason, just personal preference).

I prefer Debian mostly because of quality control and package management. Red Hat's quality control was spotty in the past, but they've gotten a lot better. Debian's package management also seems to be staying about a generation ahead of Red Hat. They've had apt-get for a while, which is probably comparable to yum in the RH world. Now Debian is on to aptitude, which is a little smarter and tracks packages you've explicitly installed vs. packages that were only added as dependencies.

I like Slackware, but it's probably not the best choice for most people. Its concept of packaging is just a tar.gz with a couple of shell scripts, you're responsible for identifying dependencies yourself. Slackware-supplied packages are usually very close to the original source, unlike RH and Debian who ship packages with so many patches that the upstream authors won't support them. Slackware is small, it was 2006 before they had to add a 3rd CD. It includes a number of commonly-used packages, but it's not even close to the scale of RH or Debian - if you need something, you generally build it yourself. In many respects, it follows a traditional UNIX approach: it gives you a very reliable gun and plenty of bullets, but it's up to you to shoot the target and not your foot.

Take the stated memory requirements for CentOS/RHEL/Fedora with a grain of salt. You don't need much if you're not running X and a bunch of apps. I think RH recommends a minimum of 256M for RHEL4, but I have it running in VMware with 128M and it's only really using 29M after running for a couple of weeks. It's not doing much, just Samba and firewall.

[Stuart Browne]

Just answerong one of the questions, re CentOS.

If you're anything like me, you'll build this box, and probably 'never touch it' again.

This is where the extended release cycle and maintenence releases of the Enterprise level products comes in handy.

I've got an FC1 box here doing, well, samba/apache/sendmail/etc. etc.. It's well and truely out of even the legacy cycle of updates now, and is going along fine. But it's now one of those integral parts of my network that it's a pain to pull down and rebuild as something newer.

[John Collier]

Stewart,

You make a valid point on the life expectancy issue. I most likely will not want to make any major changes for a very long time to come once it is in place. 2013 is sounding very attractive at this time.

I have not forgotten this issue. I will be looking into CentOS and the others as time permits.