Making a nas for home use...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Richard, Jun 24, 2010.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Getting sick of all the drives being on the desktop windows machine, and
    will be buying several 2TBs once spring comes around.

    Anyway, the idea of chucking them onto a linux based nas is appealing.

    Need to know if any of the simple distros can do the following.

    Use a server 2003 domain to authenticate against
    Use the ntfs permissions on a connected USB hard drive with the point above
    Do raid-5 (not on the USB ntfs drives)
    Keep the permissions when moving stuff off the NTFS drives onto the raid.

    I know server 2003 can do all that as I have done it in the past before
    the machine crapped out, and now I have that license being my domain
    controller I really dont want to have to try to find another one somehow.
     
    Richard, Jun 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 24, 10:40 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    > Need to know if any of the simple distros can do the following.


    Note: my answers reflect what the actual underlying tech can do, and
    doesn't take into account any limitations due to an over simplfied
    GUI.

    EMB has already recommended some well regarded distros - note FreeNAS
    is FreeBSD based rather than Linux ;)

    I haven't actually used them though.

    >
    > Use a server 2003 domain to authenticate against


    Yes.

    In a year or so after Samba4 is released, they'll be able to be a 2003
    domain controller too.

    > Use the ntfs permissions on a connected USB hard drive with the point above


    It should be able to once the domain stuff has all been set up
    properly. Note: plain old Unix permissions can't really match NTFS
    permissions - you'll need to configure the NAS to use ACLs for that
    (shouldn't be a problem though).

    > Do raid-5 (not on the USB ntfs drives)


    Yes - as well as raid10, raid6 and even ZFS stuff on FreeNAS (one
    advantage of FreeBSD)

    > Keep the permissions when moving stuff off the NTFS drives onto the raid.


    Probably only if you do a backup/restore type operation or something
    similar that saves permissions. By default just moving files between
    different filesystems ends up as separate delete/create operations and
    that will reset permissions (this will happen with a Windows Server as
    well).


    Another idea if you want to get crazy is OpenFiler can apparently do
    iSCSI SAN type stuff. You could mount SAN devices from your domain
    controller and share them from there. OK that is just overkill now -
    you'd just swap the potential Active Directory integration headaches
    for potential iSCSI/networking headaches ;)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jun 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    Geoffm Guest

    Dealextreme.com have a NAS box that lets you plug in 2 USB drives and
    mounts them on the nwetwork - some sort of built in linux server. It
    supposedly lets you share printers but I coudl never get that to work.
    Can't remember the cost -wasn't much though
    Geoff
     
    Geoffm, Jun 25, 2010
    #3
  4. Richard

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 25, 8:23 pm, EMB <> wrote:
    > On 25/06/2010 12:17 a.m., AD. wrote:
    >
    > > Another idea if you want to get crazy is OpenFiler can apparently do
    > > iSCSI SAN type stuff. You could mount SAN devices from your domain
    > > controller and share them from there. OK that is just overkill now -
    > > you'd just swap the potential Active Directory integration headaches
    > > for potential iSCSI/networking headaches ;)

    >
    > IME iSCSI with OpenFiler is rock solid stable - for the last couple of
    > years I've had it running as a target for several Windows 2003 and 2008
    > servers running within ESXi.


    Cool. Good to know :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jun 25, 2010
    #4
  5. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Geoffm wrote:
    > Dealextreme.com have a NAS box that lets you plug in 2 USB drives and
    > mounts them on the nwetwork - some sort of built in linux server. It
    > supposedly lets you share printers but I coudl never get that to work.
    > Can't remember the cost -wasn't much though
    > Geoff


    Those cheap things seldom do anything to limit access to certain folders.

    eg the flatmates shuold be able to see the tv series and movies, but not
    my documents, the work documents, etc, the work computer should see the
    work documents only.
     
    Richard, Jun 25, 2010
    #5
  6. Richard

    JohnO Guest

    On Jun 24, 10:40 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    > Getting sick of all the drives being on the desktop windows machine, and
    > will be buying several 2TBs once spring comes around.
    >
    > Anyway, the idea of chucking them onto a linux based nas is appealing.
    >
    > Need to know if any of the simple distros can do the following.
    >
    > Use a server 2003 domain to authenticate against
    > Use the ntfs permissions on a connected USB hard drive with the point above
    > Do raid-5 (not on the USB ntfs drives)
    > Keep the permissions when moving stuff off the NTFS drives onto the raid.
    >
    > I know server 2003 can do all that as I have done it in the past before
    > the machine crapped out, and now I have that license being my domain
    > controller I really dont want to have to try to find another one somehow.


    You need a domain controller for home use?
     
    JohnO, Jun 25, 2010
    #6
  7. Richard

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:47:18 -0700, JohnO wrote:

    >> I know server 2003 can do all that as I have done it in the past before
    >> the machine crapped out, and now I have that license being my domain
    >> controller I really dont want to have to try to find another one
    >> somehow.

    >
    > You need a domain controller for home use?


    Media PC for the lounge, PC in the kitchen, 2 PCs in the office - his 'n'
    hers - PCs in the bedrooms for the kidz, and a file & print server - 8
    machines. Much easier to control what can be done with MS Software if
    there is also a domain controller.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Jun 25, 2010
    #7
  8. Richard

    victor Guest

    On 25/06/2010 11:20 p.m., Richard wrote:
    > Geoffm wrote:
    >> Dealextreme.com have a NAS box that lets you plug in 2 USB drives and
    >> mounts them on the nwetwork - some sort of built in linux server. It
    >> supposedly lets you share printers but I coudl never get that to work.
    >> Can't remember the cost -wasn't much though
    >> Geoff

    >
    > Those cheap things seldom do anything to limit access to certain folders.
    >
    > eg the flatmates shuold be able to see the tv series and movies, but not
    > my documents, the work documents, etc, the work computer should see the
    > work documents only.


    This one looks interesting (its a distro, not a gadget)
    http://www.ebox-platform.com/
     
    victor, Jun 25, 2010
    #8
  9. Richard

    JohnO Guest

    On Jun 26, 9:56 am, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:47:18 -0700, JohnO wrote:
    > >> I know server 2003 can do all that as I have done it in the past before
    > >> the machine crapped out, and now I have that license being my domain
    > >> controller I really dont want to have to try to find another one
    > >> somehow.

    >
    > > You need a domain controller for home use?

    >
    > Media PC for the lounge, PC in the kitchen, 2 PCs in the office - his 'n'
    > hers - PCs in the bedrooms for the kidz, and a file & print server - 8
    > machines.


    An unhealthy household.


    > Much easier to control what can be done with MS Software if
    > there is also a domain controller.
    >
    > --
    > "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    JohnO, Jun 26, 2010
    #9
  10. Richard

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:
    > On Jun 26, 9:56 am, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:47:18 -0700, JohnO wrote:
    >>>> I know server 2003 can do all that as I have done it in the past
    >>>> before the machine crapped out, and now I have that license being
    >>>> my domain controller I really dont want to have to try to find
    >>>> another one somehow.

    >>
    >>> You need a domain controller for home use?

    >>
    >> Media PC for the lounge, PC in the kitchen, 2 PCs in the office -
    >> his 'n' hers - PCs in the bedrooms for the kidz, and a file & print
    >> server - 8 machines.

    >
    > An unhealthy household.


    <sarcasm>
    Yeah, it'd be much better if they were all TVs.
    </sarcasm>
    --
    Shaun.

    "When we dream.... that's just our brains defragmenting" G Jackson.
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 26, 2010
    #10
  11. Richard

    Richard Guest

    JohnO wrote:
    > On Jun 24, 10:40 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    >> Getting sick of all the drives being on the desktop windows machine, and
    >> will be buying several 2TBs once spring comes around.
    >>
    >> Anyway, the idea of chucking them onto a linux based nas is appealing.
    >>
    >> Need to know if any of the simple distros can do the following.
    >>
    >> Use a server 2003 domain to authenticate against
    >> Use the ntfs permissions on a connected USB hard drive with the point above
    >> Do raid-5 (not on the USB ntfs drives)
    >> Keep the permissions when moving stuff off the NTFS drives onto the raid.
    >>
    >> I know server 2003 can do all that as I have done it in the past before
    >> the machine crapped out, and now I have that license being my domain
    >> controller I really dont want to have to try to find another one somehow.

    >
    > You need a domain controller for home use?


    When the alternative is to have to have the same user accounts on all
    the PCs, and keep them all updated when I need to change things, yes.

    For a while I had about 10 machines of varying vintages. when
    reinstalling or adding a new one it is so much simpler with a domain
    than making a crapload of accounts and putting the right security on
    each share on them.

    With the move to storage being centralized I may be able to get away
    without it, but why not have one really? The license was free on the
    machine which was virtually a give away, the only problem is an old crap
    machine with xp home on it.
     
    Richard, Jun 26, 2010
    #11
  12. Richard

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:00:32 -0700, JohnO wrote:

    >> Media PC for the lounge, PC in the kitchen, 2 PCs in the office - his
    >> 'n' hers - PCs in the bedrooms for the kidz, and a file & print server
    >> - 8 machines.

    >
    > An unhealthy household.


    It is an imaginable scenario.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Jun 26, 2010
    #12
  13. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Sweetpea wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:00:32 -0700, JohnO wrote:
    >
    >>> Media PC for the lounge, PC in the kitchen, 2 PCs in the office - his
    >>> 'n' hers - PCs in the bedrooms for the kidz, and a file & print server
    >>> - 8 machines.

    >> An unhealthy household.

    >
    > It is an imaginable scenario.


    Actually for ages back when 4 gigs was not doable since it was in the
    era of DDR being the new things to have I was running several desktop
    machines because I couldnt have everything I wanted open at once, domain
    was pretty essential to get the shares between machines working in a
    sane manner.

    To be honest I was hoping that homegroup in windows 7 would act the same
    way but its just a bunch of useless crap.
     
    Richard, Jun 27, 2010
    #13
  14. Richard

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:23:33 +1200, EMB <> wrote:

    >On 25/06/2010 12:17 a.m., AD. wrote:
    >
    >> Another idea if you want to get crazy is OpenFiler can apparently do
    >> iSCSI SAN type stuff. You could mount SAN devices from your domain
    >> controller and share them from there. OK that is just overkill now -
    >> you'd just swap the potential Active Directory integration headaches
    >> for potential iSCSI/networking headaches ;)

    >
    >IME iSCSI with OpenFiler is rock solid stable - for the last couple of
    >years I've had it running as a target for several Windows 2003 and 2008
    >servers running within ESXi.


    I'd go along with that, but I prefer FreeNAS to OpenFiler. I like the
    interface better and the support forums are a lot more helpful.

    ISCSI would seem be the ideal solution here. It's faster than NAS and
    once set up everything would be done on the domain controller.

    For those unfamiliar with iSCSI, it makes a NAS box look like a local
    hard drive, and so you can format it as NTFS. It's much tidier than
    using Samba on the NAS box.

    --
    Ray Greene
     
    Ray Greene, Jun 27, 2010
    #14
  15. Richard

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <i069h7$e7p$>, says...
    >
    > Sweetpea wrote:
    > > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:00:32 -0700, JohnO wrote:
    > >
    > >>> Media PC for the lounge, PC in the kitchen, 2 PCs in the office - his
    > >>> 'n' hers - PCs in the bedrooms for the kidz, and a file & print server
    > >>> - 8 machines.
    > >> An unhealthy household.

    > >
    > > It is an imaginable scenario.

    >
    > Actually for ages back when 4 gigs was not doable since it was in the
    > era of DDR being the new things to have I was running several desktop
    > machines because I couldnt have everything I wanted open at once, domain
    > was pretty essential to get the shares between machines working in a
    > sane manner.
    >
    > To be honest I was hoping that homegroup in windows 7 would act the same
    > way but its just a bunch of useless crap.


    It makes a good backup device, but that's about it :)

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Jun 27, 2010
    #15
  16. In message <>, Ray Greene wrote:

    > For those unfamiliar with iSCSI, it makes a NAS box look like a local
    > hard drive, and so you can format it as NTFS. It's much tidier than
    > using Samba on the NAS box.


    But then, how do you share those files? Presumably it can only look like a
    local hard drive to one machine at a time, whereas a file server can deal
    with any number of clients at once.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 27, 2010
    #16
  17. Richard

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:51:17 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <>, Ray Greene wrote:
    >
    >> For those unfamiliar with iSCSI, it makes a NAS box look like a local
    >> hard drive, and so you can format it as NTFS. It's much tidier than
    >> using Samba on the NAS box.

    >
    >But then, how do you share those files? Presumably it can only look like a
    >local hard drive to one machine at a time, whereas a file server can deal
    >with any number of clients at once.


    Windows has a facility whereby you can share a drive or a folder on a
    network, and set permissions on those shares. It's how Windows file
    servers work. You've probably heard of Samba? It's similar to that.
    In this case the domain controller would double as a file server.

    --
    Ray Greene
     
    Ray Greene, Jun 27, 2010
    #17
  18. Richard

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:28:47 +1200, EMB <> wrote:

    >On 27/06/2010 2:33 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    >
    >> I'd go along with that, but I prefer FreeNAS to OpenFiler.

    >
    >My experiences have lead me to the opposite conclusion, but my last look
    >at FreeNAS was quite a long time ago.


    I've used FreeNAS for years and quite like it. I tried OpenFiler again
    recently when I had problems with a cheapo RAID card under FreeNAS.
    OpenFiler worked well but I do prefer the FreeNAS web interface,
    though that's just a personal preference. I also like being able to
    get a scheduled report on hard drive health which I couldn't find a
    way to do on OpenFiler.
    The FreeNAS forums are very good too. I found a fix there for my RAID
    problem so I'll switch back to FreeNAS just to keep all our NAS boxes
    the same.

    In the end they're both excellent quality software, it just comes down
    to which you prefer.

    I only started using iSCSI recently though, now I wish I'd done it
    years ago. I was surprised at how good the performance was.

    --
    Ray Greene
     
    Ray Greene, Jun 27, 2010
    #18
  19. Richard

    Enkidu Guest

    On 27/06/10 20:38, Ray Greene wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:51:17 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message<>, Ray Greene wrote:
    >>
    >>> For those unfamiliar with iSCSI, it makes a NAS box look like a local
    >>> hard drive, and so you can format it as NTFS. It's much tidier than
    >>> using Samba on the NAS box.

    >>
    >> But then, how do you share those files? Presumably it can only look like a
    >> local hard drive to one machine at a time, whereas a file server can deal
    >> with any number of clients at once.

    >
    > Windows has a facility whereby you can share a drive or a folder on a
    > network, and set permissions on those shares. It's how Windows file
    > servers work. You've probably heard of Samba? It's similar to that.
    > In this case the domain controller would double as a file server.
    >

    You probably are thinking of Samba/CIFS which is known in the Windows
    world as "Advanced File Sharing" and having a DC as a file server is not
    a good idea.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Jun 27, 2010
    #19
  20. In message <>, Ray Greene wrote:

    > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:51:17 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>, Ray Greene wrote:
    >>
    >>> For those unfamiliar with iSCSI, it makes a NAS box look like a local
    >>> hard drive, and so you can format it as NTFS. It's much tidier than
    >>> using Samba on the NAS box.

    >>
    >>But then, how do you share those files? Presumably it can only look like a
    >>local hard drive to one machine at a time, whereas a file server can deal
    >>with any number of clients at once.

    >
    > Windows has a facility whereby you can share a drive or a folder on a
    > network, and set permissions on those shares. It's how Windows file
    > servers work. You've probably heard of Samba? It's similar to that.
    > In this case the domain controller would double as a file server.


    But that’s not using iSCSI.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 27, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jefrey

    making prints at home?

    Jefrey, Jan 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,211
  2. The Hobbit
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    587
    Enkidu
    May 17, 2006
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,439
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Ian

    QNAP TS-219P Dual-Bay Home and SOHO NAS

    Ian, Sep 4, 2009, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,476
  5. Becky

    Thecus N5550 5-Bay Home NAS

    Becky, Dec 14, 2012, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    828
    Becky
    Dec 14, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page