4

I've got an ubuntu 8.04 system with a 2.2TB raid array that is the central storage for my home network. I've got several Windows XP Pro systems that I want to have read/write access to the linux storage, and I'd also like to be able to mount some Windows directories when I'm in linux.

What's the most transparent, trouble-free way to share files? I tried Samba a long time ago but I didn't like it (sorry I can't remember exactly why, I think it was issues with permissions/attributes). Then I installed Windows Services for Unix and got NFS going. I've been using that for a year, but it's still not quite there (it gags on files >2GB and every time I reboot windows I get an error message).

So I'm curious how other people have implemented this...what works best?

CLARIFICATION: I need the server to run on Ubuntu 8.04 - that's where my MythTV backend is, and since the two things I want running 24/7 are the backend and the file server, I'd like them running on the same machine to save power.

Fred Hamilton
  • 187
  • 1
  • 6
  • yeah, the problem with samba, IMHO is the fact that when it creates files on the linux machine there is a 8 char username limit and , while that works fine, its annoying for a techy like me. – djangofan Aug 14 '09 at 15:23
  • 2
    @djangofan: don't know what you're talking about, my samba shares have full long utf8 names – Javier Aug 14 '09 at 21:31

7 Answers7

5

Samba is probably the best way. There's a learning curve, to be sure, but in the long run it is probably the easiest and most standard way for a bunch of windows computers to get at files off of a Linux server. Most Linux distributions should have a "default" configuration which you can use to get 90% of the way to where you want to be.

Otherwise you could use WinSCP in Explorer mode and people can get/put files that way.

There is also a Filesystem-Over-SSH tool for windows, but I've never used it.

NFS on Windows is probably a bad idea -- it has been in the past. Every time I've tried it I've had performance and access problems galore.

David Mackintosh
  • 14,293
  • 7
  • 49
  • 78
2

Maybe iFolder comes pretty close to what you are looking for.

Unfortunately, there aren't official packages for Ubuntu AFAIK. Anyway, here's a step by step guide to set it up on Ubuntu 9.04.

alemartini
  • 1,043
  • 1
  • 6
  • 14
1

Look into a NAS dirtrobution such has FreeNAS (Based on FreeBSD) or OpenFilter (Based on Linux). They really do make sharing files simple and even help with back up.

I personally have been using FreeNAS at home serving NFS, Samba, iSCSI (for VMWare) for a while now.

Jeremy Rossi
  • 742
  • 3
  • 4
1

I am trying OpenAFS, which is a distributed and shared file system with clients for everything Unix, Linux, OSX and Windows. I don't know yet if it is good, but this is probably worth a try.

edomaur
  • 407
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12
0

I've never tried it but I've "heard" that using an Apache server with a "writeable" website is a hip thing to do (protect it with a firewall) using something like this: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2008/12/09/making-a-directory-writable-by-the-webserver/

Also, Windows7/Vista allows you to MAP-a-drive via FTP protocol. Thats what I would recommend if you use Windows 7: http://www.redmondpie.com/access-ftp-sites-natively-in-windows-7/

djangofan
  • 4,182
  • 10
  • 46
  • 59
0

What might work, although might be over complicated, would be to use iSCSI target and use ntfs as the file system, making sure that you have the NTFS writeable drivers/libs on the linux systems, and iSCSI initiators on all systems.

The only things i see going wrong are

1) single map/target (i haven't tested multiple yet)

2) not having correct write abilities across the nix platforms.

3) a max number of connections at a time to the Targets

4) security issues

Like I said, this might be over complicated, but I am pretty sure you won't have a file size issue, iSCSI is pretty fast, and from the machine point of view the shared medium would look like a local drive. Security would be handled on having user/key based connections to the target(s), and having separate targets/LUNs for each share.

Just a thought, i don't see to much iSCSI in use in the wild, but from the little testing i have done its works pretty darn good.

Jimsmithkka
  • 570
  • 4
  • 13
0

Probably an overkill. But if you are concerned about taming Samba's configuration file, then Ebox comes with a simple point and click interface that allow you to manage your shares at ease.

Screenshot: http://trac.ebox-platform.com/screenshots/28

StackKrish
  • 370
  • 1
  • 6