1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Strange File Server Problem

Discussion in 'The Lounge - Off Topic' started by zimbo, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    This is a problem that although i figured out the answer i encountered at work today and wanted to know what you guys would do.

    I need a file server and want to know what OS to install and use. I have a 200GB HDD. The clients are Windows XP and Apple MAC.

    There could be more then one answer so post them and lets see what we can come up with her guys! 8)
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics
  2. d-Faktor
    Honorary Member

    d-Faktor R.I.P - gone but never forgotten.

    810
    0
    39
    i would get a sledgehammer, smash those friggin' macs, and send a picture to noelg24.
     
  3. simongrahamuk
    Honorary Member

    simongrahamuk Hmmmmmmm?

    6,199
    125
    199
    From the man who recently posted a SAMBA Server how to, I suggest you read your own guide! :p
     
  4. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    LOL yip... linux and samba is the only solution!! why?

    Macs read and write FAT32 only BUT can READ only NTFS
    FAT32 limit is 32GB! :blink

    so the only solution is a samba file server! One of the techs tried to move the server to windows 2000 and it just wont happen - but they not accepting it... :twisted:
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics
  5. hbroomhall

    hbroomhall Petabyte Poster Gold Member

    6,623
    115
    224
    Am I missing something here?

    If the server is only accessible via a network, and you are using SMB on that network to get the file sharing, then the OS on the server is irelevant. SMB hides such details. So the Macs should work even if the server is NTFS.

    However - I'd still go for Linux here!

    Harry.
     
    Certifications: ECDL A+ Network+ i-Net+
    WIP: Server+
  6. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    Im glad someone saw it! the setup is nearly 99% the same for ubuntu so im sure you could give it a shot! 8)
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics
  7. csx

    csx Megabyte Poster

    511
    6
    81
    I would use Fedora Core X and Samba. That's my fav linux distribution atm.

    * X meaning any version.
     
    Certifications: A+, Network+, 70-271 & 70-272, CCENT, VCP5-DCV and CCNA
    WIP: Citrix
  8. wagnerk
    Highly Decorated Member Award

    wagnerk aka kitkatninja Moderator

    10,831
    357
    341
    You are able to use Win Server 2k or 2k3 as a file server for both clients. You do have to enable Services for Macintosh on the Windows server, though. Click here for info. The link is based on the older NT system, but Windows 2k & 2k3 have updated versions (but basically the same thing).

    If you're running a Windows based domain, then according to MS you can set-up cross-platform security, click here . However when we had to set this up (in my old place) we ran into several minor problems, however the file sharing aspect worked.

    Since everyone so far is going down the linux route, I thought that I might as well defend Windows :kngt - Be the odd one out :biggrin

    But like Zimbo said "There could be more then one answer"

    -Ken
     
    Certifications: CITP, PGCert, BSc, HNC, LCGI, PTLLS, MCT, MCITP, MCTS, MCSE, MCSA:M, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, MTA, MCAS, MOS (Master), A+, N+, S+, ACA, VCA, etc... & 2nd Degree Black Belt
    WIP: PGDip
  9. Baba O'Riley

    Baba O'Riley Gigabyte Poster

    1,760
    23
    99
    Um, hang on. Is not the file system on the client or server completely irrelevant? The client doesn't directly access the servers drives, it asks the server for the specific file. OR, do you mean you couldn't use a Mac for the server because it uses FAT32 so can't take a 200GB hard drive? In which case, as someone who has never used a Mac for more than about five seconds, is that right? I can't believe that OS X is limited to a paltry 32GB partition size especially when Macs are primarily used in industry for media editing.
     
    Certifications: A+, Network+
    WIP: 70-270
  10. hbroomhall

    hbroomhall Petabyte Poster Gold Member

    6,623
    115
    224
    OS X is based on FreeBSD, and certainly doesn't have a 32GB partition limit!

    Harry.
     
    Certifications: ECDL A+ Network+ i-Net+
    WIP: Server+
  11. d-Faktor
    Honorary Member

    d-Faktor R.I.P - gone but never forgotten.

    810
    0
    39
    the 32gb is a windows formatting limitation. fat32 partitions can indeed be much larger ([edit] for some reason 127gb comes to mind). windows can also use >32gb partitions, just as long as a different formatting method was used.
     
  12. Baba O'Riley

    Baba O'Riley Gigabyte Poster

    1,760
    23
    99
    I didn't know that d, very interesting. I just assumed it was a limitation of FAT32.
     
    Certifications: A+, Network+
    WIP: 70-270
  13. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    let me clear something... Mac 6 and 7 (what the customer has) only READ NTFS. Now you cant have a FAT32 partition of more than 32GB -tried and tested all day!! And you cant have NTFS because the Mac wont be able to write. So in this case ONLY Samba and Linux can be used. Yes i know protocols are out there but i was refering to the hard disk and how the clients can store data on it. 8)
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics
  14. d-Faktor
    Honorary Member

    d-Faktor R.I.P - gone but never forgotten.

    810
    0
    39
    nope. microsoft crippled fat32 inside their own operating system. no idea why.

    source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006/en-us
     
  15. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    yip thats the error msg they got! It took a while to convince them that this server cant be converted to windows and must stay as a linux server! 8) unless d im wrong? :oops:
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics
  16. d-Faktor
    Honorary Member

    d-Faktor R.I.P - gone but never forgotten.

    810
    0
    39
    i share the thoughts expressed by others here. your xp and mac machines are network clients. it doesn't really matter what kind of file system (or operating system) is used on the server, because the clients won't be using their fat or ntfs file system drivers when accessing a share on a file server anyway. keep in mind, your samba server mimicks a windows file server, so a windows file server (using whatever file system) would work just as well.
     
  17. wagnerk
    Highly Decorated Member Award

    wagnerk aka kitkatninja Moderator

    10,831
    357
    341
    You never said which version of Mac they were using. Because they're using 6 or 7, they should really look at upgrading :biggrin

    -Ken
     
    Certifications: CITP, PGCert, BSc, HNC, LCGI, PTLLS, MCT, MCITP, MCTS, MCSE, MCSA:M, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, MTA, MCAS, MOS (Master), A+, N+, S+, ACA, VCA, etc... & 2nd Degree Black Belt
    WIP: PGDip
  18. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    the MACs cant write to the NTFS parition d-faktor? and if we have FAT32 it cant be larger than 32GB. Thats the problems right there...
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics
  19. d-Faktor
    Honorary Member

    d-Faktor R.I.P - gone but never forgotten.

    810
    0
    39
    as long as the disc is not physically attached to a mac, but only accessed via the network, then no, the macs do not write to the ntfs partition. they write to a share, using the smb protocol, regardless of the file system that is used on the server. it is the server that accepts the data from the client, which is presented via the smb protocol, and it is the server that needs to write to the ntfs partition. only then will ntfs drivers come in play. so as long as the operating system on the server can write to ntfs, (and accept data via smb), you should be fine.

    unless i'm missing a vital part of mac networking infrastructure.
     
  20. zimbo
    Honorary Member

    zimbo Petabyte Poster

    5,215
    98
    181
    the thing is they tried it on-site and the above problem evolved. Like you said in Win 2000 only upto 32gb. I saw this whole situation fold out infront of us. :rolleyes:
     
    Certifications: B.Sc, MCDST & MCSA
    WIP: M.Sc - Computer Forensics

Share This Page

Loading...