Networks

Ask something
Question Locked

Installing file server on small LAN

0 helpful
7 replies

by jrocksuki

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Hi.

I work for a small company with 5 computers on the network. The computers are mainly used to document processing (not that heavy). We are thinking of installing a file server as many of the files need to be accessed by all the computers. Considering the size of the company, do you think this is a viable choice?

If a file server is installed, should I install the Windows 2000 Server or keep any Windows OS and just use the Share Folder technique to allow other users to access the files?

Thanks in advance,

Farrina

7 replies

by sebastian zdrojewski

Hi, with that reduced number of users I would suggest Microsoft Windows 2003 Small Business Server. You can create ad domain for all the users and centralize the users' credentials, so they won't be asked for usernames and passwords when accessing to the share. The suite itself contains more functions (like Exchange) that you can avoid running at the beginning but can be implemented if the company itself shows the need of shared workgroup components like calendar or address book.

by reb00t

The reason I say you can go either way is because it would depend on where the company envisions itself in 5 years. Will it grow beyond this fairly quickly or does it plan to keep this as the core amount of people?

If the company is planning on expanding quite fast (100% in a year's time), I would definitely recommend a Windows 2003 box for a file server. The reliability, security, and ease of use will payoff once they start to get bigger. Once they get to a point where they need in-house mail services and firewall services, they can move that physical machine's role to be an SBS server.

If the company does not plan on growing too quickly, I would keep them on a peer-to-peer network with one machine having an additional role of "server". I would prefer to use a Windows XP Professional Sp2 OS and run the file AND print services from one machine. This way, if something were to happen w/ file and/or print permissions, you only have to look at one box, rather than trying to figure out a mesh.

Of course doing the peer-to-peer thing is cheaper, but it depends on the company's budget and where they see themselves down the road.

by ugadata

The other posts both make excellent points.

I would ask are you thinking of a seperate PC as the file server or using one of the existing PCs as both a client and a server? Since you mention that it is not that heavy, I would somewhat lean towards one of the current machines being used as both a client and server. If this doesn't work out you can still move to using a separate PC later.

Create a folder to use as a common share point. Add the usernames(and passwords) of all the users to the machine being used as the server. Apply permissions and security to the common share and folder. Create drive mapping(s) on the clients.

Sharing a machine as both a client and a server does have a downside, if the user should shut down or otherwise cause the PC to lock up and not be available. Just be sure the user of the shared machine just logs off and doesn't shut it down.

If you were to try this and it doesn't work you can still move to a separate PC as the server and unless there is something additional other than just sharing some files and maybe a printer, I would go with XP, and again if you find you out grow the setup then go to a network OS.

Oh, and last but not least be sure to back it up often.

by 1bn0

I recall reading that Windows 2000 was limited to 10 users as a server. e.g. only 10 users could access it at one time.

I have one client, with 5 users, using a Windows XPP workstation for file sharing and a Windows 2000 workstation for the Print Server.

The XPP workstation is the office admins p.c. She does most of the word processing in the office. She also backs up the shared directory to CDROM EVERY DAY!.

A second client is using a Windows 2000Pro machine to run a Networked accounting/POS system as well as the file/print server. No problem.

Unless you have major security concerns about network access etc. I don't see the need for anything more. You still need to set up user accounts for each usr at the workstation, and yes you can not change the passwords remote like you can with windows server but neither office is concerned with password changes.

I would agree however , if you forsee the user base increasing dramatically in the near future, you may want to go ahead and install Windows Server. You don't need SBS unless you plan to run your own mail server and or Proxy/firewall the internet connection. If all you want is file and print sharing then just install a straight forward Windows 2003 server.

SBS is Windows Servers with Windows Exchange, Windows Sharepoint server for collaboration, IIS Webserver, Outlook Client, Fax Serve and SQL Server.

If you are currently using your ISP for your mail accounts I wouldn't bother with SBS, its overkill.

Whichever way you want to go I would take advantage of having the files centralized to implement a schedule of regular backups.

I would recommend http://www.backup4all.com/. It backs up to CDROM/CDRW/DVD. Not TOOO expensive.

It just compresses everything you have listed to a zip file and writes it to disk.

Restores are easy. Just open the zip file and extract the files you need. Nice and simple for a small office setup.

by jrocksuki

Thanks guys for your replies. I'll have a talk with the managers and see what they're planning for the future. Thanks again!

by mark

I'm very surprised that no one suggested this guy buy a NAS. With HDD prices falling, he could build DIY a NAS with RAID for less than half the price of SBS 2003.

I've found that offices with 3-7 desktops who just want centralized storage benefit greatly from a gigabit NAS with RAID. Anything more than 7-10 users, and then it's time to build a small domain controller/file server with centralized storage, security/AV, etc.

I've tried that use-one-of-the-desktops-as-a-file-server crap and it ALWAYS ends in disaster. With the price and availability of a good NAS, there's no need to risk storing shared data on a desktop.

This discussion is closed to new replies.