Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

coreythemagnificent46 · Jul 19, 2008, 07:39 PM

Upon cleaning out the attic today I found an old PIII 800mhz machine laying around.. and ive decided to build a web/nas server out of it. Id like the machine to ideally do both functions.. Share files off an internal 250GB drive and host websites of another internal 80GB drive. Any recommendations to what OS I could use..

BLAZE_MkIV · Jul 19, 2008, 10:57 PM

freenas.org as a start. google is your friend.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2008, 11:05 PM

FreeBSD

seanc · Jul 20, 2008, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

freenas.org as a start. google is your friend.

I second this. The latest betas have iTunes DAAP support.

Originally Posted by besson3c

FreeBSD

That's what freenas runs on.

ghporter · Jul 20, 2008, 07:36 AM

If I read what freenas does correctly, it handles the administrative work to manage storage for network users, while running on top of FreeBSD. Just running FreeBSD would require a lot of scripting or simply leaving the resources unmanaged, neither of which is a fun solution if there is any reason to keep anything separated.

besson3c · Jul 20, 2008, 12:04 PM

I guess FreeNAS is a cool solution, but just for the sake of accuracy, adding users in FreeBSD is easy, as is installing mt-daapd, Netatalk, etc. Does FreeNAS come with and/or support FreeBSD ports for building Apache and related pieces (e.g. PHP), as this user wanted to do?

seanc · Jul 20, 2008, 12:22 PM

besson3c, why not download it and run it in a virutal machine? It's only 50 megs and can be run from a livecd/iso. The latest nightly build has a web server built into it, not sure about PHP.

http://internap.dl.sourceforge.net/s...D-0.7.3514.iso

besson3c · Jul 20, 2008, 12:23 PM

That's not a bad idea, maybe I'll check it out... I've been meaning to check out MythBuntu as well, which is another similarly designed appliance OS.

seanc · Jul 20, 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's not a bad idea, maybe I'll check it out... I've been meaning to check out MythBuntu as well, which is another similarly designed appliance OS.

That's a good OS also, I'm watching TV over the LAN from it as we speak. That's for another thread though.

besson3c · Jul 20, 2008, 12:42 PM

seanc: using the OS X Mythfrontend, or something else?

seanc · Jul 20, 2008, 03:10 PM

I was using MythTVPlayer for Windows at the time. The stream of Live TV I was watching, stopped once, for some unknown reason, but resumed itself after a while. There are too many factors such as the LAN, signal interruption or the unstable build of MythTVPlayer to say what caused it.

I'm just downloading MythTV OS X Frontend to see how it performs.

There's always the option of setting up another mythbuntu box to perform as the frontend. I have one set up, but it segfaults everytime I go to 'Watch TV', not sure why, I don't really care if I can just watch it in a window while I'm working on the PC.

Why don't you start a thread to discuss this? I'm sure lots of other people have experience with it.

coreythemagnificent46 · Jul 20, 2008, 06:34 PM

Basically all I want this server to do is serve up files via smb and host web pages.. stuff that I do in iWeb.. FreeBSD looks pretty good actually.. but if freenas can do everything i need in one shot itll make things easier

ghporter · Jul 20, 2008, 10:12 PM

For just aggregating files and serving them to anyone, a FreeBSD box is hard to beat. It's way more finished than just about any Linux distro, (easier to manage too, I'm told), and just adding users and controlling storage allocation by user should handle most "this is his but not hers" issues.

besson3c · Jul 20, 2008, 10:19 PM

I don't know about more "finished" (although I don't know exactly what you mean by that, ghporter), but BSD boxes generally make network appliances. FreeBSD provides a nice basic environment for operating and installing ports (i.e. network service) where the design makes no attempt to provide a GUI or Desktop OS/Windows replacement. An OS like Ubuntu, for instance, does exactly that.

coreythemagnificent46 · Jul 21, 2008, 12:04 AM

Well I spent the better part of the evening configuring FreeNAS.. The latest beta is serving up files VIA AFP and SMB nicely and the built in web server does the trick

ghporter · Jul 21, 2008, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't know about more "finished" (although I don't know exactly what you mean by that, ghporter), but BSD boxes generally make network appliances. FreeBSD provides a nice basic environment for operating and installing ports (i.e. network service) where the design makes no attempt to provide a GUI or Desktop OS/Windows replacement. An OS like Ubuntu, for instance, does exactly that.

I was referring to how the OS "feels" when being used. Most Linux distros "feel" like Bobby threw them together in the basement before Mom called him for supper; the mix of applications, tools and commands is usually not well thought out, leaning heavily on "fun" and very light on "management." For a serious user's needs, FreeBSD is definitely well suited for management of machine resources, users, etc. You don't have to worry about which web browser is going to open up your documentation, whether the desktop they use as default will make you puke from the colors they chose, or other disturbing things that are attendant with a lot of Linux distributions.

besson3c · 10:56 AM

In that case, FreeBSD has the worst "finished" quality to it, if you are judging based on GUI user experience. FreeBSD sucks as a means to run any sort of window manager.

BLAZE_MkIV · Jul 21, 2008, 11:09 AM

FreeNAS is managed through a web interface. I'd be surprised if in even includes a window manager package. For a NAS thats all unneeded overhead.

besson3c · Jul 21, 2008, 11:11 AM

Exactly, you don't need a GUI to run a NAS, or any server for that matter...

ghporter · Jul 21, 2008, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

In that case, FreeBSD has the worst "finished" quality to it, if you are judging based on GUI user experience. FreeBSD sucks as a means to run any sort of window manager.

No, no fun and pretty eye candy, but that also means that you don't have it boot up to some really stupid anime character's picture across your desktop. You also don't have that same Xwindow system' boogered up menu system make it hard to find apps or a command line interface. It is built to run business stuff, not play deathmatches and maybe do a little real work the way Linux distros seem to be. That's what I meant by finished. Having started out being a command line type of person, FreeBSD seems to be a nicely technical but not geeky experience.

besson3c · Jul 21, 2008, 05:29 PM

I'm not sure what distros you've tried, but in the world of Desktop Linux most people have settled on Ubuntu, which is generally tastefully put together (although I'm not a fan of the color palette, it is consistent with their overall branding/marketing approach). OSes like FreeBSD, Gentoo, and Slackware are roll-your-own, there is no artwork provided by the vendor - just the defaults. OSes like CentOS/Redhat are tailored to enterprise, I would presume SUSE is tailored to business as well.

I don't know anybody who recommends any other Linux OS other than the ones I've already listed, which don't adhere to your description. Can you give me an example of an OS you've tried that was treated as you describe, so that I have a frame of reference?

mduell · Jul 21, 2008, 07:11 PM

Do you want a box to fiddle with all the time or a NAS/web server that just works? The former is definately the DIY fweetard market, while the latter should buy a box from Thecus/Synology/QNAP/Netgear (same underlying software, pre-fiddled).

ghporter · Jul 21, 2008, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm not sure what distros you've tried, but in the world of Desktop Linux most people have settled on Ubuntu, which is generally tastefully put together (although I'm not a fan of the color palette, it is consistent with their overall branding/marketing approach). OSes like FreeBSD, Gentoo, and Slackware are roll-your-own, there is no artwork provided by the vendor - just the defaults. OSes like CentOS/Redhat are tailored to enterprise, I would presume SUSE is tailored to business as well.

I don't know anybody who recommends any other Linux OS other than the ones I've already listed, which don't adhere to your description. Can you give me an example of an OS you've tried that was treated as you describe, so that I have a frame of reference?

I've had some unpleasant experiences with PC-hardware based Linux boxes. And while there are a relatively few distros that are well thought out and well put together, there are a huge number of less professionally assembled distributions. Visit your local Linux Users Group's web site (don't visit their meetings in person first!) to see the kinds of things I'm talking about. Small footprint distributions that still support a variety of codecs specifically built for playing "adult" anime straight from Japan, "complete" distributions that are so disarranged that you can't find anything at all (unless you know the guy that put it together...), and so on. So I've probably exaggerated the "mainstream" Linux world's lack of polish. Yeah, I have. Sorry. But a clean, simple command line that lets you do what you need to, that supports a GUI but doesn't even have one you have to get rid of, that "just works" is a beautiful thing.

besson3c · Jul 21, 2008, 09:46 PM

Ahhhh... I guess I'm lucky that I've always steered clear of non-mainstream distros.

ghporter · Jul 22, 2008, 09:42 AM

Steer clear of Linux zealots too. Nothing wrong with Linux, but its fan clubs can be "intense."

coreythemagnificent46 · Jul 22, 2008, 02:21 PM

Well FreeNAS is up and running.. it boots off a 512MB USB flash drive.. Running perfectly fine serving up pages and being a NAS. Ive been playing with FreeBSD in VMware and its pretty good relatively easy to use too