Strange File Server Problem

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

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!

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

i would get a sledgehammer, smash those friggin' macs, and send a picture to noelg24.

 

From the man who recently posted a SAMBA Server how to, I suggest you read your own guide!

 

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!

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...

 

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.

 

Im glad someone saw it! the setup is nearly 99% the same for ubuntu so im sure you could give it a shot!

 

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

* X meaning any version.

 

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.

 

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

Harry.

 

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.

 

I didn't know that d, very interesting. I just assumed it was a limitation of FAT32.

 

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.

 

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

source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006/en-us

 

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! unless d im wrong?

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.