Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread
-
@dustinb3403 said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges scott's reply will be "the same way you run backups on any other hypervisor".
Agent based or by simply exporting the VM on a schedule to a remote storage medium.
This is the stupid lazy answer because while it may be the same way technically, the tools do not exist the same.
-
@jaredbusch I agree.
-
@obsolesce said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
any hints on how to more effectively manage these file servers?
SaltStack.
Agreed.
-
@black3dynamite said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
These clients mostly run Windows PCs although some have agreed to test out using Linux desktops to see if that could be a fit. The oldest version of Windows for any client is Windows 7 (but they will be upgrading to Windows 10 shortly). Some have Macs but very few.
Windows and Mac are SMB native. Linux desktops will use SMB, but it's not as elegant as moving to NFS. Anytime you can use NFS, go for it. Works so well on Linux.
Any objection using both nfs and smb on the same server?
No issue at all, but not on the same share. But definitely on the same server.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges scott's reply will be "the same way you run backups on any other hypervisor".
This is exactly right. You want a process that is portable and uniform. How do you back up now on Hyper-V? For a file server that probably means backing up files via a script or agent. Your hypervisor is not a factor in that choice. It is unique to hypervisor level backups to have to worry about your platform when making backups. For a file server, you don't even need a backup utility if you don't want one, scripted backups work fine in most cases. Agents are normally better. Agentless has its place, but creates extra overhead in a situation like this. File servers can be backed up any way you want, they are the most flexible of all workloads.
-
-
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
The only problem with this is, although I'm getting better with Linux and can manage most scenarios now, Hyper-V is the hypervisor I'm most comfortable with.
This is like saying that lighting a campfire with flint and stones is what you will do because you are used to it, when the lightswitch is already invented. Even being used to it, I think the light switch remains easier once you try it out
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@black3dynamite said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
These clients mostly run Windows PCs although some have agreed to test out using Linux desktops to see if that could be a fit. The oldest version of Windows for any client is Windows 7 (but they will be upgrading to Windows 10 shortly). Some have Macs but very few.
Windows and Mac are SMB native. Linux desktops will use SMB, but it's not as elegant as moving to NFS. Anytime you can use NFS, go for it. Works so well on Linux.
Any objection using both nfs and smb on the same server?
No issue at all, but not on the same share. But definitely on the same server.
Ok. I just remember using NFS and SMB on the same server for a lab project a while ago. And I had an NFS share set up for Linux servers to back up to. And SMB share for Veeam Endpoint Backup to use.
-
@black3dynamite said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@black3dynamite said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
These clients mostly run Windows PCs although some have agreed to test out using Linux desktops to see if that could be a fit. The oldest version of Windows for any client is Windows 7 (but they will be upgrading to Windows 10 shortly). Some have Macs but very few.
Windows and Mac are SMB native. Linux desktops will use SMB, but it's not as elegant as moving to NFS. Anytime you can use NFS, go for it. Works so well on Linux.
Any objection using both nfs and smb on the same server?
No issue at all, but not on the same share. But definitely on the same server.
Ok. I just remember using NFS and SMB on the same server for a lab project a while ago. And I had an NFS share set up for Linux servers to back up to. And SMB share for Veeam Endpoint Backup to use.
Nearly all NAS do that, too. Very common to have AFP, SMB, NFS, FTP all on the same box.
-
I genuinely dont why and what is file server anymore in this day and age, as it sounds very simple basic and archaic task to the point that it gone pointless, like FTP and SFTP.
Regarding Linux as file server, you should seriously consider Linux Centos/Fedora and check how easy it is to setup and harness the power of linux LVM/FS/VDO/RAID below:
https://mangolassi.it/topic/17760/unlock-vdo-in-cockpitIt as very simple when dealing with elegant GUI client like cockpit, and you just need to install centos minimal + cockpit storaged packages, and your ready to fly. You can do RAID 10 on 4 drives, and then create LVM on top of it, and easily resize that volume any second or grow it without the need of unmounting it. VDO adds the compression and duplication support.
Why do you want to deal with Windows idiot way of mounting network drives and it is limitations.
Screw that, and even if you want to do this, why not use WinSCP with its 16 years of experience with another secure protocol and modern one like WebDav or SCP.
I just dont get why File Server old way of thinking is needed for any company, let them have local copy + sync copy on the server as NC does, way modern and + you can easily host it on premises + open port and you allow them to work from home and access their files.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
The only problem with this is, although I'm getting better with Linux and can manage most scenarios now, Hyper-V is the hypervisor I'm most comfortable with.
This is like saying that lighting a campfire with flint and stones is what you will do because you are used to it, when the lightswitch is already invented. Even being used to it, I think the light switch remains easier once you try it out
Lmao. That's not even a valid comparison. Using Hyper-V or KVM is going to provide an excellent hypervisor platform and while there may be some advantages of using one over the other, we aren't talking about a full on departure from what would be considered good business practice. While I learn about KVM as a hypervisor and continue to use Hyper-V in the meantime, I'm still using standard industry best practice tools. If something was completely against today's norms like running Windows Server with Hyper-V role instead of Hyper-V Server, then it's fair to say that's not the right approach.
Let's not forget that there is huge value in using something you know well over something you don't, especially when it is still best practice.
-
@emad-r said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
I just dont get why File Server old way of thinking is needed for any company, let them have local copy + sync copy on the server as NC does, way modern and + you can easily host it on premises + open port and you allow them to work from home and access their files.
There are instances where a local file server is the best approach. I think even die hard fans of completely lanless designs cough cough @scottalanmiller cough cough
would agree. I have clients who are in rural areas where internet connection speeds are simply too slow to be effective with any cloud storage technologies. Even their backups are taken offsite every night by their team because internet speeds can't support a cloud solution.I also have clients who are in the graphics and video business. The file sizes they deal with make it mandatory that they use onsite file servers. For a double whammy, this particular graphics company is rural with poor internet speed.
Other cases where business owners are not "comfortable" using cloud only are still running local file servers. But slowly, we're winning them over, especially when some have had to recover backups that are cloud stored and were able to get back online quickly. Some do see the value while others can't handle it. At the end of the day, it is their business and as long as they aren't asking me to support them in a way that I think is detrimental, then they get their local file servers.
-
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
There are instances where a local file server is the best approach. I think even die hard fans of completely lanless designs cough cough @scottalanmiller cough cough
would agree. I have clients who are in rural areas where internet connection speeds are simply too slow to be effective with any cloud storage technologies. .Modern, LANless "cloud" storage is not affected by good or bad Internet connections. That's a misconception of both the LANless design and that kind of storage. LANless doesn't mean non-local, nor does cloud storage imply it's not local.
There ARE use cases for legacy storage. But it sounds like you are thinking of more modern storage as having limitations that it doesn't actually have.
-
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
I also have clients who are in the graphics and video business. The file sizes they deal with make it mandatory that they use onsite file servers. For a double whammy, this particular graphics company is rural with poor internet speed.
While these types of workloads typically are good for "legacy" file server protocols, cloud does on site as well and can do these. In some cases, cloud storage is even superior because of the potential for more advanced local caching.
-
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
Other cases where business owners are not "comfortable" using cloud only are still running local file servers. But slowly, we're winning them over, especially when some have had to recover backups that are cloud stored and were able to get back online quickly. Some do see the value while others can't handle it. At the end of the day, it is their business and as long as they aren't asking me to support them in a way that I think is detrimental, then they get their local file servers.
This really isn't something that management should see or be told about because it's not something that they could understand. Never refer to modern storage as "cloud storage" or you risk them associating it with either cloud computing or "the cloud", which it is unrelated to either. It's just a meaningless buzz word attached to auto-synced storage.
-
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
The only problem with this is, although I'm getting better with Linux and can manage most scenarios now, Hyper-V is the hypervisor I'm most comfortable with.
This is like saying that lighting a campfire with flint and stones is what you will do because you are used to it, when the lightswitch is already invented. Even being used to it, I think the light switch remains easier once you try it out
Lmao. That's not even a valid comparison. Using Hyper-V or KVM is going to provide an excellent hypervisor platform and while there may be some advantages of using one over the other, we aren't talking about a full on departure from what would be considered good business practice. While I learn about KVM as a hypervisor and continue to use Hyper-V in the meantime, I'm still using standard industry best practice tools. If something was completely against today's norms like running Windows Server with Hyper-V role instead of Hyper-V Server, then it's fair to say that's not the right approach.
Let's not forget that there is huge value in using something you know well over something you don't, especially when it is still best practice.
It's more of a comparison that you might think. Running Hyper-V, especially without AD, can be a big pain and requires lots of special knowledge. Running KVM is just a matter of installing and... TADA. Campfire vs. lightswitch. KVM only seems like there would be something to learn because Hyper-V made it seem like you'd need to learn things.
-
@nashbrydges said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@emad-r said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
I just dont get why File Server old way of thinking is needed for any company, let them have local copy + sync copy on the server as NC does, way modern and + you can easily host it on premises + open port and you allow them to work from home and access their files.
There are instances where a local file server is the best approach. I think even die hard fans of completely lanless designs cough cough @scottalanmiller cough cough
would agree. I have clients who are in rural areas where internet connection speeds are simply too slow to be effective with any cloud storage technologies. Even their backups are taken offsite every night by their team because internet speeds can't support a cloud solution.I also have clients who are in the graphics and video business. The file sizes they deal with make it mandatory that they use onsite file servers. For a double whammy, this particular graphics company is rural with poor internet speed.
Other cases where business owners are not "comfortable" using cloud only are still running local file servers. But slowly, we're winning them over, especially when some have had to recover backups that are cloud stored and were able to get back online quickly. Some do see the value while others can't handle it. At the end of the day, it is their business and as long as they aren't asking me to support them in a way that I think is detrimental, then they get their local file servers.
Who said anything about Cloud, I know i know nextcloud has cloud in it, i get that alot.
But why not a local NextCloud server ?The only down side to it, that the files will take size on their machine as well as the NC server, thats it. If you can afford this, then this is the way to go.
Want them to work in shared group folder, make shared folder and let NC handle the rest, if 2 people will work on the file at the same time, it will create conflict file with the 2 versions.
Having agent, and software logic and versioning and throttling and user sharing for beats the the standard approach of simple file remount mount.
If small company ask me for file server, I will just create my own USB druve using quality samsung SD cards and put it in router and share that usb storage, it will serve them right and much cheaper.
I am not talking about something I dont know about, doing the stuff your own way and creating Linux instances for anything gives you much greater flexibility and power than just buying a device, trust yourself you can do much better than "them" especially in the low-mid price point.
-
@emad-r said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
The only down side to it, that the files will take size on their machine as well as the NC server, thats it. If you can afford this, then this is the way to go.
That's purely optional. Not a given. NextCloud can be used with files purely on the server just like with SMB.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@emad-r said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
The only down side to it, that the files will take size on their machine as well as the NC server, thats it. If you can afford this, then this is the way to go.
That's purely optional. Not a given. NextCloud can be used with files purely on the server just like with SMB.
Huh, how so ? you mean only via web client. If your installing the agent at somepoint it will need to sync the files to your account synced folder.
-
@emad-r said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
@emad-r said in Linux As File Server- Break Out From Other Thread:
The only down side to it, that the files will take size on their machine as well as the NC server, thats it. If you can afford this, then this is the way to go.
That's purely optional. Not a given. NextCloud can be used with files purely on the server just like with SMB.
Huh, how so ? you mean only via web client. If your installing the agent at somepoint it will need to sync the files to your account synced folder.
Nextcloud has a built in SabreDAV server to do native WebDAV. You need a valid certificate that Windows has the root for but it can be mapped like any other share drive on Windows 7 and Windows 10.
