Best Home Server OS

[mjonesjr]

What is your all's opinions on which is the best OS to run on a home server?

I am currently running Windows 7 64-bit. There are a few reasons why. One reason is I have the OS on a genuine disc. Another reason is I can use Windows Media Player to stream movies, music, and pictures to my TV via my xBox 360. A third reason is I can use Carbonite as a backup solution.

Let's hear what you all are using and why.

 

[gribly]

The best OS is the one that fits your needs. Sounds like you found yours. I don't run a home server, I just have wireless routers running linux.

 

[mjonesjr]

The best OS is the one that fits your needs. Sounds like you found yours. I don't run a home server, I just have wireless routers running linux.

And why do you use Linux? Get a little more detailed than that. This is mainly for others so they will have a spot to look for the information.

 

[hoosier1104]

I run Ubuntu, Linux variant, because I wanted something that is not Windows based and will help with my engineering degree. Here is a screen shot of what I am running.

 

[mjonesjr]

Thanks for the info.

How does Ubuntu react to connecting with other devices, as far as networking?

 

[hoosier1104]

Well they have developed a wrap to make the drivers think they are in a Windows enviroment and run correctly. Check out www.ubuntuforums.org for more info.

 

[squidget]

I've got this old PC in the office that we use an overglorified NAS. It runs Windows 2000 Pro. Old school, but it's done the job.

 

[mjonesjr]

I didn't think Windows 2000 had support for SATA drives?

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

I didn't think Windows 2000 had support for SATA drives?

No...and yes.

The ultraATA 133 controllers can be used for SATA drives, and it works, if I remember correctly. It's been a long time since I screwed around with that though, and only did it once, when my buddy and I were farting around with different setups on a surplused machine he saved from the recyclers at work, so I could be wrong...

I think there's also a Microsoft hotfix for it, but IIRC that's to fix a problem with having both a partitioned SATA drive as disk1 (given the C: designator by BIOS) and PATA drives in the same machine where the OS doesn't 'see' the SATA partition.

I'm sure there's a bit more to it than that, but that's all I remember. I don't do a lot of that stuff anymore.

 

[fratermus]

print server - I have one old windows 2000 machine I use as a print server and to run the one or two apps that don't like to run under WINE or virtualization. Will eventually figure out how to get the printers happy on linux, but for now it's my lone windows box. Nothing personal against windows (see bottom).

Most of the rest of this is linux stuff, which I blog about periodically/trivially.

Multimedia (mythtv) server - mythbuntu linux, because it was the easiest way to get a myth box up and running quickly. And it's free.

Wifi router with hacked linux-based firmware (OpenWRT, IIRC): because it allows granular configuration and a great deal more feature than came stock on the router. Shaping, crude QOS, etc.

My WD NAS fileserver is linux-based. Dunno the distro. I assume they use it because it is free and stable.

My workstations are relatively light linux distros that started out as debian. Wife runs lxde and I run openbox+fbpanel for configurability and light resource consumption. If I were having to install on a new box I'd give real consideration to Mint, mepis, or antiX distros. I've liked what I saw in virtualbox.

Netbook is Tiny Core Linux - functional X desktop in 11 megs (not a typo). Comes with an eth0-enabled stack, and you grab whatever else you want. Amazing. Free. Insanely fast and light. This is the distro for you if you like ultralight hiking or have ever made your own penny alcohol stove.

I have nothing against Windows. If it were free and made so I could strip it down to what I want and not 2GB of what someone else wants, I'd gladly run it again.

I've tried to install FreeBSD a few times in the last year but either it doesn't like my virtualization setup or my brain has been poisoned by linux. Have never gotten X running successfully on it.

 

[jason_mcallister]

I use a Buffalo TeraStation for my NAS. It's a 2terrabyte RAID-5 with a 1000mb interface.
Administration is done through web browser. Too easy. The linux kernal O/S is in firmware and the file system, doesnt use NTFS, is hardened so if you lose power that data doesn't get corrupted. Downside is it's a little slow because internal CPU is a little weak but power consumption is pretty low.

 

[fastpakr]

We've got a TeraStation at the office that was originally purchased to be a small NAS appliance for one of our remote sites. Ended up appropriating it for another use in the server room in the main site. Seems to work amazingly well for an inexpensive NAS. Relatively easy to swap the drives out and grow the capacity as needed. As you said, the performance isn't spectacular but it's more than enough for typical file server use. Has a lot of added in packages that may or may not be useful depending on your situation (like onboard torrent, UPnP, print spooler, etc).