|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > November 2002 > w2k server --> RH
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Matthias Gutehall 2002-11-27, 4:24 am |
| Hi all
We are planning to replace our w2k server (costs to much) with a RH server.
Our problem is that we have alot of info and programs stored on this server.
My question is how to solve this. The partion is NTFS. Can RH read and share
the partion as it is or do we need to format it and put the files back?
--
Regards
Matthias Gutehall
Company website: http://www.gulo.nu
about : http://www.gulo.nu/staff/mg/default.asp
| |
| Sybren Stuvel 2002-11-27, 4:24 am |
| In article <yJ0F9.6730$1r1.268920@newsc.telia.net>, Matthias Gutehall wrote:
> We are planning to replace our w2k server (costs to much) with a RH server.
Good choise!
> Our problem is that we have alot of info and programs stored on this server.
> My question is how to solve this. The partion is NTFS. Can RH read and share
> the partion as it is or do we need to format it and put the files back?
RH can read and share the partition, but not write to it. You can keep
it that way, but it would be better if you convert it to ext3
(performance, write support, journalling).
Sybren
--
How's he gonna read that magazine rolled up like that? What the ... - a fly.
To get the best help, ask questions the smart way:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
| |
| Simon Morris 2002-11-27, 4:24 am |
| On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:01:02 +0000, Matthias Gutehall wrote:
> Hi all
> We are planning to replace our w2k server (costs to much) with a RH server.
> Our problem is that we have alot of info and programs stored on this server.
> My question is how to solve this. The partion is NTFS. Can RH read and share
> the partion as it is or do we need to format it and put the files back?
>
How about the following:-
1. Install Linux onto a second disk using EXT3. This disk would need to be
larger than the set of data you want to migrate.
2. Mount your W2k disk as a read only partition (Linux only supports read
operations on NTFS at the moment)
3. Copy the data across to the Ext3 filesystem. Using Samba you could
share the data to your clients in the same way as the W2k server would've
done.
Giving your RH server the same name as the W2k server will preserve all
mapped drives, shortcut icons etc.
Another problem I could see is what services does the W2k server offer --
Directory services for a start, email etc??
--
Simon Morris
"The statistics on sanity are that one out of
every four Americans are suffering from some form of
mental illness. Think of your three best friends.
If they're okay, then it's you."
Rita Mae Brown.
| |
| Jeroen Geilman 2002-11-28, 2:24 pm |
| Simon Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:01:02 +0000, Matthias Gutehall wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>> We are planning to replace our w2k server (costs to much) with a RH
>> server. Our problem is that we have alot of info and programs stored on
>> this server. My question is how to solve this. The partion is NTFS. Can
>> RH read and share the partion as it is or do we need to format it and put
>> the files back?
>>
<snipped good explanation>
> Another problem I could see is what services does the W2k server offer --
> Directory services for a start, email etc??
Well, yeah, but there's a much bigger problem first - there is NO WAY that
you can migrate the NT user data from a win 2000 server over to a redhat
server - or ANY unix server for that matter, look :
- user account / group membership incompatibilities;
- unix does not have NT's concepts of special user accounts, nor can it
support more than 16 groups per user (NT has no limits AFAIK);
- if we enumerate, NT supports more than 40 (yes FORTY) distinctly different
possible permissions on files and directories PER USER... blech
- and even so : HOW do yo plan to migrate the ownership and permissions of
files stored on NTFS to an ext3 partition ?
You can't, right ?
So unless he can do without all of that (and yes, there are plenty of
situations where that stuff doesn't matter) Linux / Samba is NOT an
alternative for a win 2000 server...
No, I don't particularly like M$ - it's just not true that samba is all that
compatible with it - sure, the *network* protocol is, but the NTFS is
completely different from anything unix uses.
J
--
disgruntled, sure - but what can one do ?
|
|
|
|
|