Linux As a File Server

BeastRider

I come from the world of Windows, but since my discovery of php, I've learned more about LAMP and I like it... especially the low cost.

I currently run a 25 PC LAN using Windows clients and one NT server. I want to add another file server. A windows client would be just fine for the task, except that MS doesn't allow more than 10 computers to be connected to a client for file sharing purposes. And, I don't feel like spending the dough for another copy of server just to have a box to hold massive gigabytes of files.

So, I'm thinking about a Linux box to handle file sharing but I know next to nothing about compatibilities.

Would anyone care to comment upon the viability of such a project, including the level of expertise required to get the thing going?

Thanks.

stolzyboy

check out Samba it will be your friend in this request

goldbug

Yeah, what stolzyboy said. Samba's good stuff.

As far as level of expertise, If you can get a linux box up and running, than you probably have the skills to get Samba running. Especially if you use SWAT
(usually installed with Samba; SWAT = web admin tool for Samba).

Sxooter

Way back when (four years ago or so) when I first setup a linux box for web server development (under PHP 3.0.5, postgresql 6.5.3 and RH linux 5.2, yes, THAT far back) I setup samba to use our Windows NT PDC box for authentication.

A Few months go by, and suddenly my phone starts ringing when the marketeers can't edit their stuff on my box.

I go up stairs to the computer room, and there's our beloved NT sysadmin with the box on the floor in pieces, replacing a dead fan in one of the drive hot swap shoes. At 1:30pm on a Friday.

Me: "Hey, none of my folks can get to their stuff on my linux box"

Him: "That's ok, the Backup DC will take over."

Me: "Not for samba it won't, and in 15 minutes, when replication fails, the BDC will stop responding."

Him: "But, in MSCE class they tolds us that's how it works"

Me: "They lied."

15 minutes later the entire building (150+ people) lose access to all the windows / samba servers. Took that idiot another hour to get the box back together and up and running.

The next week I put all my user's names into the samba box and set it to do it's own authentication. That was the last interruption of server we had with samba.

Of course, this was the same guy who, one week after brown nosing to get himself named the "network system administrator" of our computer room asked me "What does NIC stand for?"

dalecosp

OOh! Good one...

I've never been sure that certification was as good as thought and experience....

csn

What does MCSE stand for?

Sxooter

Supposedly "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" But I say it stands for "Meaningless Credentials Supporting Egos".

csn

hehe, I was hoping for a smart-ass answer 😉

dalecosp

Originally posted by Sxooter
Supposedly "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" But I say it stands for "Meaningless Credentials Supporting Egos".

ROFL...

/me stands back as Sxooter blows smoke from big gun....

Doug_G

I went the linux file server route a couple months ago on my 7 computer windows domain network. I have a one-person shop and still the biggest headache in setting up samba was the windows user to linux user mapping. It got easy when I added a linux user with the same username and password as my windows login, the redhat box then popped right up in windows explorer like it belonged there.

Samba appears to map system, hidden and archive bits to unix chmod bits, when I view files & folders I've added through samba from a linux ls, most files are marked executable as far as linux is concerned. I don't know for sure if this is normal or if it would pose a risk if you have curious linux users on the same box.

The only other issue I found was when I moved vb6 project folders to the samba box there was a name-mangling issue I could not solve (the myname~1 8 character DOS names). VB6 project group files end up as mangled 8.3 filenames in Windows, but no matter how I configured name mangling in samba I couldn't end up with project group files that worked. Samba would not convert to 8.3 filenames the same way VB did. Other areas of name mangling worked fine, just not VB6. I didn't have any problems with stand-alone vb6 project files.

I have been quite happy with the linux fileserver, it's now my primary file repository for my network. I got a low-end Dell 600SC server with IDE drives to do the hardware.

goldbug

Originally posted by Doug G
Samba appears to map system, hidden and archive bits to unix chmod bits, when I view files & folders I've added through samba from a linux ls, most files are marked executable as far as linux is concerned. I don't know for sure if this is normal or if it would pose a risk if you have curious linux users on the same box.

FWIW, you can set the file/directory creation permission masks for your shares in Samba.

http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/man/smb.conf.5.html#CREATEMASK
and
http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/man/smb.conf.5.html#DIRECTORYMASK

Doug_G

Thanks, goldbug.

The problem (well, it may not be a problem really) has to do with the samba directives map system, map hidden, and map archive. These settings allow you to preserve the DOS hidden, system and archive bits.

If you enable preservation of these DOS bits, samba uses the execute bits for owner, group, world unix settings on the theory that DOS & windows uses file extensions to identify what's executable and what isn't, so the unix execute bits aren't that significant.

This is fine unless you're accessing the files from both linux and windows. Either you lose the DOS attribute bits to preserve the linux execute bits, or you save the DOS bits and all your files are marked executable in linux.