OS for DIY NAS box?

[Namuna]

I recently pulled the trigger on the SimpleTech 250gb NAS at buy.com...Unfortunately I jumped in too late and the thing went on backorder before they filled my order. :-(

So I started investigating other NAS options and I think I'm going to cancel the buy.com order and just DIY my own. I've got an old PC (Compaq Deskpro PII 450) that's been wasting closet space and it seems the perfect beast for the job (I think anyway)...Just need to get a decent PCI SATAII card to put some nice drives in there.

I saw an article at SmallNetBuilder about about build your own, but the info is based on giga lan speed and I'd be working with 100 and Wifi on my home network.

Here's a list breakdown of what the intended job for this box is:
- Print Server (Epson R200)
- File Server (Primarily for Pictures and TV shows (divx))

The smallnetbuilder article mentioned that FreeNAS is buggy and they went with Ubuntu, ClarkConnect Home and WinXP Pro for testing.

Any have their own experiences, or links out to other info?

Thanks for any help.

 

[oynaz]

My NAS came equipped with a customized version of Linux. I belive eg. Ubuntu would serve you well.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Namuna
I'd be working with 100 and Wifi on my home network.

Your bandwidth will throttle you far before your file server does.

- M4H

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Namuna
I'd be working with 100 and Wifi on my home network.

Your bandwidth will throttle you far before your file server does.

- M4H

Indeed, you can easy saturate 100Mb with modern hard drives.

 

[tw1164]

I've used clarkconnect as a gateway/router box before. Its very easy to setup. It has a pretty good community for support too.

 

[d3n]

OpenFiler is really nice and has a lot of good enterprise level features. HTTP/FTP/ISCSI. It is totally configurable via a web browser. Supports most raid lvls in hardware and software. Has high availability and clustering options. Its developed off of rpath Linux. Good stuff.

 

[Kaido]

Honestly I've found Windows 2000 Professional to be pretty decent as a file server. You can VNC into it for remote access, file sharing isn't a pain, and setting up a shared printer is cake.

 

[RaiderJ]

I just use Windows XP for mine, and it's currently running on a PIII 550MHz without problems. I really don't think it matters much what OS you use, just something your comfortable with. Windows is good for me because I can easily fix it or add new features/software.

 

[Namuna]

Thanks for all the replies folks, much appreciated.

I just went ahead and canceled that order that's on backorder from Buy.com. I think I'm going to throw WinXP Pro on the box and pickup a PCI SATA Controller card and throw some nice chunky HDs in there.

Hopefully the Power Supply isn't going to be a concern.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Honestly I've found Windows 2000 Professional to be pretty decent as a file server. You can VNC into it for remote access, file sharing isn't a pain, and setting up a shared printer is cake.

this is what i use too. works like a charm

 

[oynaz]

Windows 2K and XP are good as file servers, agreed, but they both cost money (though you can probably scoop up a Win2K somewhere).

 

[applexxe]

Are You Joaking?

 

[Namuna]

Hmmm, Win2k aye? I think that's the way I'll go then. The old PC's pretty light in the Mem dept so the bloat of XP might not be the best thing for it.

I just ordered a pair of 400gb SATAII Seagates for $99 each! Sweet! Now to find a good PCI SATAII Controller with RAID.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

freenas anyone?

 

[Madwand1]

Just as point of interest, Vista might be interesting, with its networking improvements and SMB 2.0, once you have clients that support it.

Linux/SAMBA with SMB 2.0 or of course Longhorn server would be more appropriate, but if we're considering cheap XP/2K licenses (which I think is fine in some cases), then cheap Vista boxes might also be worth considering soon.

My backup file server is actually running Vista RC1 atm. I don't have any fast Vista clients atm though to check out the SMB 2.0 performance. I do find that the new networking gives some advantage, but of course it's not possible to improve upon a network that's already running at 950 Mb/s or so, which can be done with other OSs with selection and tuning.