Webmin + Ubuntu .... vs Spare copy of WinXP & file sharing??

[dsc106]

OK.

Basically, I want to have a shared network drive so my iTunes music and songs stay synced across systems. I want this network drive to have all my documents and pictures so they stay synced and I can access the same set anytime. And I want it to be always on and available.

I run Mac & PCs, and having it over the network eliminates formatting issues with the drive types and read/write abilities.

I set up Ubuntu 8.10 with webmin on a spare system (Athlon64, 2gb RAM, 6600gt). After trying to figure out my way around, and be annoyed to death by command line SUDO stuff, etc. I finally managed to get a Samba server up and running, accessible from my Mac and PCs.

I mapped the network drive on my PCs so I could access it just like an HDD, and used a similiar trick on the Mac (create an alias, put it in a folder, add to login items).

OK, great.

Now, I realize there are all kinds of things I can do with a Ubuntu server. But to be honest, webmin and Ubuntu seem like somewhat of a pain - a bit complicated. And while the other things seem cool, I'm not sure if I'll actually use them...

What advantages would Ubuntu setup as a server have for me, over say just installing a spare copy of Windows XP on this system instead, and then setting up file sharing, and leaving it on full time in a lower power state? It seems like I could just map the network drive the same, and save all the confusion of webmin and ubuntu?

Or am I missing some big stuff here?

PS If you are wondering why I didn't go with a different NAS such as DNS-323, I was thinking about it, but...

- Transfer speeds are slow on anything except the very most expensive NAS devices! OR... a DIY one.
- Limited to 2 drives. With a case, I can put as many as I can fit in!
- Free! I have the spare hardware laying around... but not a ton of cash
- Did I mention the faster transfer speeds?

 

[thiggins]

You can certainly use XP as a server/NAS as long as you are ok with a limit of 10 maximum simultaneous clients and don't mind burning the power, heat and noise of a desktop.

 

[dsc106]

So the only advantage of Ubuntu + webmin, save for 10+ clients, is the power consumption (that entails heat/noise... though I have a super quiet Antec Sonata III case the noise isn't too much of an issue anyway).

Certainly there are other benefits?

Also - I installed Ubuntu 8.10 desktop + webmin. If I use ctrl+alt+F1 to disable the GNOME window manager (ctrl+alt+f7 brings it back), does this essentially put me into the same low power savings mode as running Ubuntu Server? How much less power does this consume than XP? And, when GNOME is on - does it actually still conserve less than XP?

And are there any other benefits I am missing to running Ubuntu + webmin?

 

[thiggins]

All the features in the world don't mean anything if you don't use them or they are too much of a hassle to get at.

Use the solution you are most comfortable with and stop worrying.

You may not have much luck trying to access power save features in Linux. Others have reported mixed results.

 

[dsc106]

Thanks Higgins.

Waking up this morning with a fresh mind helped a lot. I feel like I have a better overall grip on Linux and the webmin interface, and don't feel so overwhelmed. At the same time, I definitely am more used to Windows.

(1) Just "as is" booting Ubuntu to run as a server, does it save much power over XP? What would allow it to save so much power?

(2) Even if I don't use them, what would some say are the main benefits of using Ubuntu + webmin? The others things I would be interested in are switching my webhosting to at home (rather than paying someone else - I have FiOs 20mbps up & down speed), setting up an FTP server, and mounting my NAS shared drives from a remote location. I am guessing I couldn't do this in XP...? But could somewhat easily through Webmin?

Sorry to ask so many questions! But thank you for the help!

 

[dsc106]

Thanks Higgins.

Waking up this morning with a fresh mind helped a lot. I feel like I have a better overall grip on Linux and the webmin interface, and don't feel so overwhelmed. At the same time, I definitely am more used to Windows.

(1) Just "as is" booting Ubuntu to run as a server, does it save much power over XP? What would allow it to save so much power?

(2) Even if I don't use them, what would some say are the main benefits of using Ubuntu + webmin? The others things I would be interested in are switching my webhosting to at home (rather than paying someone else - I have FiOs 20mbps up & down speed), setting up an FTP server, and mounting my NAS shared drives from a remote location. I am guessing I couldn't do this in XP...? But could somewhat easily through Webmin?

Sorry to ask so many questions! But thank you for the help!

Sorry to ask again, but I am still wondering about some of these things. Just want to know how much advantage I'd really have with Ubuntu vs XP. Do most people go with Ubuntu because it is free, or they hate Windows, or because it is actually much better? etc. Thanks s a bunch.

 

[thiggins]

Sorry to ask again, but I am still wondering about some of these things. Just want to know how much advantage I'd really have with Ubuntu vs XP. Do most people go with Ubuntu because it is free, or they hate Windows, or because it is actually much better? etc. Thanks s a bunch.

I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

 

[dsc106]

does anyone else though?

 

[00Roush]

I recommend using the guide here ---> http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30573/77/ to install Ubuntu Server. This is what I used to setup Ubuntu Server and it worked great. I would say the Server version is just streamlined more than the Desktop version so that only the necessary items needed for server duties are loaded.

To answer you last couple questions:

1. Basically no. Same hardware would be used so there would be no real difference in power consumption as far as I know.

2. You didn't specify if your copy of Win XP would be PRO or HOME. Home does not allow specific security settings to be set or allow you to do a remote desktop session. Basically you could not remote manage your Win XP Home server. Ubuntu with Webmin would allow for remote management of the server. In general I believe Linux (Ubuntu in this case) is regarded as better able to deal with server tasks. (file serving, web hosting, databases, ect) So this perception and the fact that it is usually free definitely would contribute to why one would pick Ubuntu over Windows as a server OS.

Both Ubuntu and Win XP can host web pages and run FTP servers. I think windows might have the edge on how easy it would be to setup but that is only if Webmin does not support these tasks. From what I can tell everything that is integrated into Webmin is fairly easy to setup. I will say that in my testings I have found that the intergrated FTP server/client in windows does not give the best performance. Ubuntu had better performance. But this was at gigabit speeds and a single client.

For home use, I think either will work just fine and offer similar capability. Just remember that Win XP Home does not allow setting of individual security settings for users and groups.

00Roush

 

[MoralDelima]

1) To my knowledge, the way that you 'save power' using Linux over Windows is the lower specs required to run each. A 1.2ghz processor with 1GB of ram will run a Linux machine great but a standard WinXP install will chug a bit. (You can streamline, etc blah blah of course). If you already have the hardware, though, use what you're comfortable with.

2) With that being said, almost everything with hosting services exposed to the web is easier with Linux (and more abundant). For example, setting up a VPN, or an SSH client or a file server. I've been trying to get an SSL tunnel + a VNC service running in windows and want to shoot myself. These applications are a lot more readily available (and less exspensive/free) in Linux. However, that being said, you can get programs that are a lot easier to set up then in Linux (NAT/routing issues aside). Head over to SnapFiles.com and check out some programs like Filezilla, Cerebrus FTP, etc. They also have some pretty stupid simple web server apps.

If you need to remote manage your windows server you can always get a VNC setup like RealVNC or TightVNC.

 

[scotty]

I've used both at home as a NAS/Server, and I'd have to come in line with Tim on this one - all the features in the world don't mean anything if you don't use them.

Ubuntu is nice from the perspective that it's free, and you can customize it to be pretty lean, or customize it to do whatever the heck you want. You can also set up a bazillion ways to access the box or do things remotely. But for basic NAS use, there isn't really much difference (save the 10 user limit of XP). A file share is a file share. FTP is FTP. Everything else being equal I dont think you'd see much difference in the two.

 

[zedpol]

The way i see it
Linux vs windows advantage

1) you can use way wimpier hardware to do what you need to do
2) Headless administration
3) way more configuration options (i.e. ftp, samba, vpn, itunes server, etc)


Negatives
1) windows is easier

 

[br14]

I am currently working through similar issues. I built a box using D945gclf2 (dual Atom) board and installed XP, Ubuntu 8.10 Desktop, and Ubuntu 8.10 Server.

The XP and 8.10 Desktop seem to yield more or less same transfer rates while the Server appeared about 10% faster – I use the past tense as the server partition got clobbered while trying to recover from the Desktop install. So far as Samba is concerned, the Desktop setup was the easiest, followed by the Server. The XP setup was also straightforward, but complicated by Comodo and original paranoid Nlite settings.

My original intent was to run the server and bring up the GUI when needed by changing the runlevel, but apparently it is difficult to do in Ubuntu.

Regarding the OP’s question, for the plain file server Ubuntu server seems like a better choice, and the fact that it is free does not hurt. However, if any additional functionality such as emule, torrent, web browser, is needed, XP or Ubuntu desktop would probably be a better choice. On the other hand, XP is far from ideal in a headless configuration. I have no experience with WAN servers, but the traditional view is that the *N*X based installs tend to be more secure.

If I ever decide to explore the “pure” server option further, I will seriously consider a real UNIX such as Solaris or BSD assuming it runs on my hardware. Currently, I am not willing to give up the convenience of a GUI for 10% performance gains.

 

[bliko]

I have to agree with tim; do what's easiest for you!

If your unfamiliar with linux, using it in a live environment is a bi**h at the best of times. Your life will be much easier using xp since it is familiar to you, and applications are easier to obtain and configue.

I used to use an old xp box as my home server, however because of its power consuption, its maintaincance requirements, and the fact that I don't require very high transfer speeds; I decided to go for a nas.

Because of the high cost of power in the uk, it was actually cheaper for me in the long run to invest in a nas with low power consuption. The unit i have (DNS-323) obviously runs a form of linux, and is therefore very hackable, i use it for file sharing, upnp streaming, torrent downloading (transmission), and have configured it to backup to a remote server via ssh and rsync. For me this isn't too difficult because i'm familiar enough with linux (after a lot of red bull, late nights, and tears), i can get most of the functionality i require out of this little box. I dont require high preformance since streaming / document sharing don't take up much bandwidth).

To practice with ubuntu and webmin i play with it in vmware. It's good, however for a home server I would recommend xp, since the benafits of linux don't outweigh the headache it will cause for a beginnner. You should play arround with linux in a test environment untill your knowledge about it improves...because it is very usefull for certain things .... ubuntu however offers no clear advantage for your situation.

If you are using xp home you will not be able grant user specific permissions to your shares, however this usually isnt required in a home.

With just documents pictures and music are you sure you cannot fit everything on a nas?

If you don't want to spash out on a nas (one good option) : simple + could be cheap in long run... then stick with xp

....control your server using vnc or rdp.

 

[br14]

....control your server using vnc or rdp.

And consider good old KVM switch if location allows.