Best Linux for Windows [NTFS?] file server?

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:15 am

Greetings,

I am getting very tired of Windows problems with viruses and Trojans -- what would be the best distro of Linux to run so I can share NTFS hard drives on a Windows LAN? I like Ubuntu, but working with NTFS is weak, AFAICT.

Thanks in advance!

quikkie · Post by **quikkie** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:36 am

let me guess, existing drive(s) with data on it(them) and you want to plug it(them) into a linux box?

my suggestion is don't. In my experience NTFS support is buggy, prone to crashing the system (unless the NTFS volume is mounted read-only) and generally not a good idea. OTOH that was with the NTFS support that is freely available, there is a pay-for NTFS kernel module that Paragon(?) sell that may provide better support.

If I were you I would spend a little time juggling data and format the drive so that your favourite distro can read and manage the disk properly.

I'm guessing that I've just said what you didn't want to hear (sorry)!

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:41 am

Hello,

Yes, that is what I was hoping to do. But, with a little more effort, I could format them with FAT32, and then serve them in a Linux boot, right?

In the meantime, I have reinstalled WinXP, and am running most of the time as a Limited User...

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:04 am

Well, you probably already know you can't convert directly from NTFS to FAT32, so if you're going to the trouble of shuffling data around and reformatting the drives you might as well use a proper Linux filesystem. FAT32 is too fragile and unreliable to use on a server anyway, especially with today's monster drives.

I can't see a quick and easy way to do it, unfortunately - NTFS is a very solid filesystem (apart from its tendency to fragmentation), but it just doesn't play nicely with Linux, unless you want to take your chances with those dubious third-party drivers. If you have hundreds of GB of data on NTFS drives, it might be easier just to set up a Windows server, completely block it from the Internet in your firewall, and otherwise lock it down as much as you can...

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:17 am

Hello,

I'm currently copying files from an NTFS HD to a FAT32 HD. I need to be able to read & write to them from Windows & from Linux. I'll take the "fragility" of FAT32 over the crazy/lousy/terrible security issues of Windows...

IsaacKuo · Post by **IsaacKuo** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:19 am

Assuming cost isn't an issue (e.g. you already paid for a copy of Windows for the server), then I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to prefer Linux over Windows for a basic file server.

Whether the file server is running Windows or Linux, it isn't actually going to be "running" any programs so viruses and trojans won't be executed--not on the file server itself.

Whether the file server is running Windows or Linux, the client computers can be executing trojans or viruses and they'll happily infect/damage/corrupt the files on the server share regardless of the server's OS.

quielb · Post by **quielb** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:32 am

In a word: Samba

Set up a linux box using linux file systems ( stay away from NTFS and FAT ) then set up Samba. It will allow you to "share" directories from your linux box as windows shares that can be accessed by XP/2000/2003/Vista.

paramthegreat · Post by **paramthegreat** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:49 am

NeilBlanchard,

Ntfs support in Linux kernel is no the best at the moment. But there is another project, ntfs-3g. Its a user-space based driver that allows complete read-write access to Ntfs partition. I have been using it for a while and it has been completely stable for me. Ubuntu, Arch Linux, Gentoo, Redhat .... all of them have very good support for ntfs-3g.

Btw, Fat32 has a 4 GB file size limit. So please be careful about that (i know i have been burnt once). You can also convert the drive to ext2 and you can mount it on windows using this ext2ifs driver.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:57 am

Hello,

Thanks for all the responses so far!

I'm fairly sure that FAT32 has a size limit, but it's gotta' be greater than 4GB -- WinXP will format FAT32 up to 32GB, and other tools (Disk Director, GParted, etc.) will format ir to 120GB and 300GB; I know from personal experience.

paramthegreat · Post by **paramthegreat** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:00 am

I am sorry, I should have been clear about Fat32. I used to have a 120GB hdd formatted as Fat32. But you cannot have 1 file larger that 4Gb. So lets say you created a zipped backup of your data, that single zip file cannot be larger than 4GB.

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello,

Thanks for all the responses so far!

I'm fairly sure that FAT32 has a size limit, but it's gotta' be greater than 4GB -- WinXP will format FAT32 up to 32GB, and other tools (Disk Director, GParted, etc.) will format ir to 120GB and 300GB; I know from personal experience.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:50 pm

Hello,

Well, well, well - Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn) mounts NTFS drives after all!

I'm going to find out if the Samba sharing works correctly, but I am pretty sure it will!

Will miracles never cease!

[Edit: Ubuntu can read, but not write to NTFS drives.]

paramthegreat · Post by **paramthegreat** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:29 pm

make sure you use automatix and use ntfs-3g

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello,

Well, well, well - Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn) mounts NTFS drives after all! I'm going to find out if the Samba sharing works correctly, but I am pretty sure it will!

Will miracles never cease!

IsaacKuo · Post by **IsaacKuo** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:43 pm

Automatix and ntfs-3g are also available for Debian, if one cares to use it. But in any case, as much as I love Linux and support it, I'm still not clear on what benefit is imagined. Regardless of what OS the file server is using, viruses and trojans will still be run on the client machines and they'll infect/corrupt/delete files in a writeable network share just as they would a local file.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:17 pm

I don't really get it either - with Windows clients accessing the Samba shares, simply running Linux as the server OS won't do a thing to protect the data from viruses & trojans, and throw NTFS volumes mounted for Linux read/write access into the mix and you end up with the worst of all worlds.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:43 pm

Hello,

The problem isn't the files on the network share -- it's the boot drive on the Windows machine. If you can't boot the machine, or keep it clean, then the shared files are moot. I just want to be able to have a file server that doesn't get the OS infected.

Cleaning out files is one thing, but cleaning out an OS is much harder.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:22 am

Sorry Neil, I'm probably being thick, but I'm still not clear what you're trying to achieve.

If the main problem is the Windows client box (your primary workstation?) being unbootable due to viruses/trojans, that won't be solved by running a different OS on a different local network machine - the problem is caused by access to/from the Internet, not the LAN. As for the server itself, there's no reason a properly NATed/firewalled Windows box should be any more vulnerable than one running Linux - unless you've set up the server's system files as part of a network share with full admin rights (and why on earth would you do that?), malicious code running on the client can't directly harm the server OS. The data files in shares on the server will be exactly as vulnerable (or not) as your access rights from the workstation allow, no matter what underlying OS is running.

By all means set up a Linux server if you prefer it to Windows anyway, but although many people swear the third-party NTFS drivers are solid, I just feel writing to NTFS volumes could bite you on the ass at some stage, and it won't solve any problems relating to the Windows PC...

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:43 am

Hello Nick,

I have two machines: my main workstation (Athlon 64 X2 4200+) has a triple boot: WinXP 64bit, WinXP 32bit, and Ubuntu 64bit, so it seems to avoid security issues, because it gets rebooted a lot and it runs in Linux about 2/3 to 3/4 of the time. The second machine (Athlon XP @ 1.75gHz) was just running WinXP 32bit, and it acts as file server to the main machine.

This machine got infiltrated (I think when I had a badly infected machine in my LAN, while I was repairing it for a client), and now I have it running much of the time as either Limited User in WinXP, or booted to Ubuntu 32bit.

What I want to do is to be able to serve the files (on two additional HD's in the second machine) w/o getting the OS infected. I am running a robust hardware firewall, and a software firewall as well as (hopefully) good antivirus.

quikkie · Post by **quikkie** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:51 am

I'd recommend a *nix box with natively formatted disks and running samba. It won't prevent data corruption due to virii, but it will effectively stop malware affecting your fileserver.
Having said that there is the possibility to run AV on your linux box to scan files as they appear on the server - I know Grisoft have a "linux fileserver AV" product, and I *think* Kapersky also have a similar product although I have to be honest and say I don't know what the prices for these products are.

I'm not a linux fanboy (I prefer freebsd or solaris) nor am I anti-all-things-MS I just believe in the best tool for the job and while a reverse engineered protocol emulator (samba) doesn't seem like the best choice it's the more secure choice due to the platforms it runs on - meaning that a windows viris won't work on a non windows system.

quielb · Post by **quielb** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:40 pm

On the AV for *nix topic. Check out ClamAV its a freeware AV software.

Prodigy Freak · Post by **Prodigy Freak** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:31 pm

Samba