Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Master_Scythe

FileServerOS: Argue with me!

Recommended Posts

though Win7 doesnt havethe 10connection limit, so the lowest version of that may be a win too.

Link?

 

AFAIA the 10 (5) concurrent connections stands. Only the 10 half open TCP connections has been lifted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the process of putting together a similiar setup and was wondering which OS I would go with.

I was going to install Windows Server 2003 as i've had a little experience with it, but i'm not sure whether I should go Server 2008 instead. I have access to both through Dreamspark so cost isn't an issue.

Was hoping someone with experience would be able to shed some light on Server 2008, is it all it's cracked up to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fiuzzy, while the OS is free through dreamspark i do believe you need to pay for CALs i have a question about this in the windows forum right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im doing this myself in the next few days. However I am going Ubuntu server rather the Solaris, mainly because I are more familiar with Linux and I know that Vmware works quite well on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to use remote desktop to an XP machine, it has to be XP Professional. XP Professional is also preferred for advanced file sharing permissions.

Edited by smadge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to use remote desktop to an XP machine, it has to be XP Professional. XP Professional is also preferred for advanced file sharing permissions.

Thats not true. Remote assistance can be enabled on both PRO and HOME and all versions have MSTSC installed. Permissions are harder to config in home though, yes, but it can still do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it can be hacked, yes, but it's not technically legal, though you probably don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was quite skeptical about whs but i really like its backup features.

 

if i had to have only one server (instead of a 2nd one with a mixture of old drives) id have linux base with WHS in a vm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubuntu:

Main thing putting me off this is size. 4GB default install, and it doesnt even have half the features of freenas (a 100mb distro). However WebMin makes it easy to config, I get to choose all my options and set it up as I see fit, the size means it needs its own HDD, and I dont know much about linux. I can use it, but configuring it has always been daunting. then again with the arrival of APT all that time ago stuff did become easier.

What you want is to the absolute minimal install, and then go "apt-get install --no-install-recommends xubuntu-desktop".

 

That will give you a lean-and-mean XFCE powered Ubuntu machine.

 

Rob.

 

Why would you do this, instead of using a distribution that is actually designed to be minimal? I'm still(always) learning, but from what I understand, minimal ubuntu still has a lot of extra stuff than say minimal debian or arch linux.

 

The caveat is that you need to run the AMD64 distribution of FreeBSD; I wouldn't touch the 32 bit distro with a 10 foot barge pole...

Surely this is what keeps ZFS from being considered stable for FreeBSD however? The fact that it is only stable for a specific port?

 

For the topic, I would think a minimal linux distribution or opensolaris would be the best options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×