Building a file server, which OS

[gntlkilr]

Ok, I'm building a file server with around 4-5 TB of HDD space. About 2 Gb of RAM, dual P3 1.0 Ghz CPUs. (got the board, one of the processors, and 128 Mb of RAM for 20$ at a Computer Renaissance in the States). Anyways, I have a mixture of XP and Vista on my network. I don't know Linux yet, I'm trying to learn, but I have the access to free legal copies of Server 03. So whats better? Server 03 or Linux? I'm not ttrying to start a battle here, just a simpel, I have a buttload of stuff I want to put on a central server, whats faster and better on an older machine.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

[SgtM]

So whats better?, I'm trying to Server 03 or Linux? I'm not ttrying to start a battle here, just a simpel, I have a buttload of stuff I want to put on a central server, whats faster and better on an older machine.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

While Server 2003 will run on that box, Linux will definitley be MUCH lighter. There are TONS of tuts available on building a linux file server.

Here are just a few:
http://www.aboutdebian.com/lan.htm
http://www.real-time.com/linuxsolutions/fileserver.html
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/testdrive/article.php/3522596
http://librenix.com/?inode=1111

[XcOM]

While i agree with SGTM about linux running faster, Windows will be better for talking to with for a file server.

Yes Linux is better, faster, more powerful and more stable. But if your not fluent in Linux then i would say that windows 2003 is the better option, simply becuase it has a wizard to setup a file server, a few clicks and your well away with the faries.

My old server was a P3 1GHz running server 2000, till i got a copy of 2003.

N.B
If your running a dual CPU setup, makesure that you have the second VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) This controls the power to the second CPU, some motherboards have these built onboard for the second CPU, others require the module to be inserted. Check before you decide to use the second CPU or you might not be using all it has to give, or even worse, damage it.

[gntlkilr]

While i agree with SGTM about linux running faster, Windows will be better for talking to with for a file server.

Yes Linux is better, faster, more powerful and more stable. But if your not fluent in Linux then i would say that windows 2003 is the better option, simply becuase it has a wizard to setup a file server, a few clicks and your well away with the faries.

My old server was a P3 1GHz running server 2000, till i got a copy of 2003.

N.B
If your running a dual CPU setup, makesure that you have the second VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) This controls the power to the second CPU, some motherboards have these built onboard for the second CPU, others require the module to be inserted. Check before you decide to use the second CPU or you might not be using all it has to give, or even worse, damage it.

Yeah it does, its an "actual" server board that i took out of an old HP Proliant. That was one of the selling points for me was that it already had the VRM

[gntlkilr]

While Server 2003 will run on that box, Linux will definitley be MUCH lighter. There are TONS of tuts available on building a linux file server.

Here are just a few:
http://www.aboutdebian.com/lan.htm
http://www.real-time.com/linuxsolutions/fileserver.html
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/testdrive/article.php/3522596
http://librenix.com/?inode=1111

I read through a couple of those tuts, not quite what I was looking for. Mostly what I'm looking for is not the faster operating system, but mostly which OS is gonna be faster over my network? I'm running 1000 Mb all through my network, and I'm sick of trying different tweaks through Server 03. Will Linux run better to share things out than Server 03? thats mostly what I'm looking for.

Also, because the server is a work in progress, I'm not starting a worklog, too far into the project now for that, but here's a quick sketchup of the case.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b220/immortalshadow77/Server/Server.jpg

[Airbozo]

Linux will not be faster than windows that you will notice. The network code in the server 2003 is really good. Your bottleneck will be in the nic you use (and the number of them that you use).

I am a M$ basher (it's a personal thing), and I do recommend linux over windows almost all the time. In this instance there will not be a noticeable difference other than the fact you can pretty much slim down the linux kernel to run faster. This will not translate into the network pushing bits out faster though, but with multiple file system requests it MAY actually seem faster since the linux box would be doing less per cycle than the windows box. There are also some pretty good file systems under linux that are better for media files than NTFS. (You'll have to do a little research on that one)

http://fsbench.netnation.com/

As to the additional P3, you MUST make sure you match the speed step or the proc will either not work, or cause the system to slow down or hang. Most of the time it just refuses to post. (I just went to pick up a P3 1ghz and got all the way to the store before remembering I need the speed step.)

[gntlkilr]

Linux will not be faster than windows that you will notice. The network code in the server 2003 is really good. Your bottleneck will be in the nic you use (and the number of them that you use).

I am a M$ basher (it's a personal thing), and I do recommend linux over windows almost all the time. In this instance there will not be a noticeable difference other than the fact you can pretty much slim down the linux kernel to run faster. This will not translate into the network pushing bits out faster though, but with multiple file system requests it MAY actually seem faster since the linux box would be doing less per cycle than the windows box. There are also some pretty good file systems under linux that are better for media files than NTFS. (You'll have to do a little research on that one)

http://fsbench.netnation.com/

As to the additional P3, you MUST make sure you match the speed step or the proc will either not work, or cause the system to slow down or hang. Most of the time it just refuses to post. (I just went to pick up a P3 1ghz and got all the way to the store before remembering I need the speed step.)

Speed Step? I'm clueless there.

[Airbozo]

Speed Step? I'm clueless there.

Yes, most people are until they try to upgrade the PIII and are asked (hopefully) by the vendor for the speed step value. I was, and even yesterday I forgot I needed this info.

This utility from Intel will tell you all the information you need to know about your proc (this utility only works on P III and older procs and celerons);
http://support.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/

This one works on the newer procs;
http://support.intel.com/support/processors/tools/piu/sb/CS-014921.htm

[XcOM]

i disagree, i think server 2003 will be your best bet, Yes Linux runs faster, and yes there are better formats on linux for hard drives, but this then limits you to using a linux box if one of the drive fails, or if the box fails.

Server 2003 is easier to install period.

Linux is physically faster, and this will NOT translate into network speed. If your running 1GB eithernet make sure the firewall your using isn't limiting this, as my old system had Sygate on it with 1GB network, it limited it to 10/100, as soon as i put zone alarm on instead it worked at 1GB

If your going to be issuing multipul commands or requests for file then more than one NIC card will be needed as this increases the ammount of data that can be sent/recived at any time, Otherwise known as teaming

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/89c27bf2-1db2-4546-a71f-3439344caf251033.mspx?mfr=true
A doc from microsoft ^

[gntlkilr]

ooooh, researching geek facts. Lovin it. Thanks Airbozo.

I'll keep that in mind cuz I actually use Sygate. Which might be why its so slow. Zone Alarm, eh? I always heard bad things about it. I'll try it out. Thanks XcOM.

[gntlkilr]

ok Airbozo, I checked out the processors. Both are identical. Thus the reason I bought it, SL52R.

Here they are for both:
sSpec Number: SL52R
CPU Speed: 1 GHz
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Bus/Core Ratio: 7.5
L2 Cache Size: 256 KB
L2 Cache Speed: 1 GHz
Package Type: FC-PGA
Manufacturing Technology: 0.18 micron
Core Stepping: CD0
CPUID String: 068a
Thermal Design Power: 29W
Thermal Specification: 75°C
Core Voltage: 1.75V

EDIT:
Doh Double post, sorry

Just uninstalled Sygate, and installed Zone Alarm on the server and my PC. ALOT better. Thanks XcOM!!!!!!!!!!

[OvRiDe]

If your going to just run it as a file server may I suggest...

Openfiler -- http://www.openfiler.com/

FreeNAS -- http://www.freenas.org/

Nice easy installs, linux/bsd based, web based administration, and light on resources.

Hope this helps.

[Bucko]

Both links are the same....

[OvRiDe]

Doh!! Thanks Bucko.. stupid cut and paste :D and of course me for not proof reading. Its Fixed now.

[gntlkilr]

If your going to just run it as a file server may I suggest...

Openfiler -- http://www.openfiler.com/

FreeNAS -- http://www.freenas.org/

Nice easy installs, linux/bsd based, web based administration, and light on resources.

Hope this helps.

Ya know, I've heard of Openfiler before. Never used it. But I was looking at versus Server 03 and honestly, I don't see a major difference to what I want. I want a server that I can access files from any of my PCs. Only 1 is Linux and thats my Firewall (IPCop). The rest are a mixture of XP and Vista.

I'm gonna stick with Server 03 for now and watch out for faster network access. Like right now, I'm watching 802.11n. Once that comes out with a full on standard, I'm so switching my network to fiber and wireless N. But hey, well see.

[OvRiDe]

Understood, but from experience I must say if you are looking for faster file transfer speeds Win2K3 Server is not necessarily the best route. At my work we were a full Novell shop. The Novell servers were using CIFS/SMB for the Windows connectivity. The division I was in was bought out by another company and they converted us to a Windows Active Directory environment using Win2K3 server. I must say we saw a significant drop in network file transfer speeds. When deploying our standard desktop image using Ghost and a mapped network drive, our imaging time went from about 12 minutes using a Novell server to aprox 27 minutes using our Win2K3 File server. Users also complained that it took longer to open files and save them as well. It may be worth checking it out.

I am not trying to bash MS or anything, just figured I would share my experience so you can make a better educated decision. Hope this helps...

[gntlkilr]

we'll see. Once I moved from Sygate to ZOne Alarm for a software firewall on each PC, the access times and transfer times got extremely better. Like I said, I'll stick with what I got for now, but I like that FreeNAS.