-1

I'm new to networking and IT, so I apologize for any gaps of knowledge in my query.

I want to set up a file server for at least ten Windows 7 workstations so that these computers can download and upload files to a centralized location.

I also want to allow the public (those outside of the network) to access some of these files from the central location via a web browser. Browser-based FTP comes to mind here.

One option seems to be buying space in the cloud from a company like Rackspace. They also have a cloud hosting service for FTP.

Another option, if I don't want to put my files in the cloud, seems to be to use FTP client software like Filezilla or SmartFTP to either use on of the workstations as a server or purchase a computer for that sole purpose, and then pay some company to host the FTP website.

Is this correct? Are there similar and/or better alternatives to the solutions I mentioned?

photon
  • 101
  • What specific problem are you trying to solve with this arrangement? – Katherine Villyard Jan 21 '14 at 01:27
  • 1
    I work in a laboratory and we basically want a shared database of each individual's publications, data, figures, simulation files etc. We also want to have a publicly accessible website where anyone who is interested (students, potential collaborators, etc.) in our work can download such files we choose to be publicly accessible. – photon Jan 21 '14 at 01:42
  • As others have mentioned FTP is insecure and a plain bad idea. Others have also noted that the nuances of your use case typically dictate whether actually want a file protocol or something more advanced like a content management system. For the former I generically recommend CIFS/SMB + WebDAV (either Windows with IIS, or Linux + Samba + Apache or Nginx). CIFS/SMB is just your plain Windows file share, widely supported and good for LAN use. WebDAV is similarly widely support and works well over the Internet. You should really get a professional consultant onboard, even if minimally. – Chris S Jan 21 '14 at 03:20

3 Answers3

2

For sharing files among a group of Windows workstations, just setting up a Windows network share seems to be the best way to go -- it doesn't involve anyone having to install new software or learn a new way of doing something. They just drag files around as they would for local storage.

To expose the files to "the public", mount it read-only on another system running a web server (e.g., Apache). Now people can use a browser to browse and download files.

larsks
  • 41,276
  • 13
  • 117
  • 170
  • Yes, that would seem to be the most straightforward way to do it, but by "mount it read-only on another system running a web server", this means either 1) a dedicated server or 2) server hosted by a cloud service right? – photon Jan 21 '14 at 01:48
  • Maybe. The advantage to having the share available only read-only on th webserver is that if you have incorrect permissions or a webserver compromise or something, the data still can't be modified. That said, you could run Apache -- or something else -- right on the fileserver. – larsks Jan 21 '14 at 01:50
  • Unless you know or can hire someone who knows how to secure Apache and are committed to maintaining patches, etc an Apache web server can be a serious security issue. If you run Apache on windows and have the server physically connected to your private natwork, very bad things can happen. – lonstar Jan 23 '14 at 00:48
2

Based on your comment,

I work in a laboratory and we basically want a shared database of each individual's publications, data, figures, simulation files etc. We also want to have a publicly accessible website where anyone who is interested (students, potential collaborators, etc.) in our work can download such files we choose to be publicly accessible.

I'm going to recommend a web-based Content Management System over an FTP site. The one that comes to mind is Microsoft SharePoint, because it's marketed to the kind of collaboration/extranet model you're talking about. You could even get a hosted SharePoint site from Rackspace or a similar vendor if you didn't want to maintain it yourself.

FTP is an insecure protocol that sends your username and password unencrypted. You could replace it with SFTP or FTPS (different things), of course, but it sounds like you're wanting to do most of your uploading and downloading type work through a web browser.

Or I could be on the wrong track. :)

(Edit just to say: I do not work for Microsoft or Rackspace.)

Katherine Villyard
  • 18,510
  • 4
  • 36
  • 59
0

There are three factors to consider in the answer

  1. Size of the files.
  2. Interaction model with files (is it mostly read, or read-write)?
  3. Securing the files (making them tamper-proof).

If your files are small, and your model is read-only and you're not super-worried about security then I'd recommend a shared DropBox account (or one of its kind). You get 2 GB of storage for free, there are clients for Mac/Windows/etc, and if you share in the "public" folder external users can read the files.

They support shared accounts, or you can have a master account and invite others to share in specified folders. Very slick if the files are small (let's say a few hundred files of a few hundred megabytes) and your users don't need to be opening and editing the files simultaneously.

If you need bigger files, or more read-write, or are worried about security, I would look at hosting. You can get a good cheap file services (depending on your bandwidth needs) for about $15/month and it will be a professional environment with someone like 1to1, etc (I don't like GoDaddy because it's puerile, but if you don't mind supporting a little T&A and domain stealing with your money go for it).

lonstar
  • 139
  • 3
  • 1) The files are small; most are <5MB and few are at most 10MB I'd estimate. But there are more than 2GB of such files. 2) Mostly read-only 3) Yea, we wouldn’t want the files to be tampered with. Security is a concern for files we don’t want to share publicly, but I think the solution here is to just not host sensitive files on the public website at all. If we use DropBox, I think it would be a slight hassle for public users who have never used it before and have to download it, install it, sync and all that. I’m hoping our files can be available for the public in a few clicks. – photon Jan 21 '14 at 02:02
  • 1) You don't have to have your public users install Dropbox. 2) If you put the files in the "public" folder your public users can reach them with an URL and don't need to log in, etc. 3) You can raise the 2GB limit by paying for the 25 GB cap or doing a free test via enrolling, filling out the profile and then inviting your fellow private employees to join. Each signup gets you an extra 250GB. I am not a dropbox fanboy, I just don't want to see someone dropping $$ on a "hosting solution" they don't need if the purpose is just to share a few PDFs. Use the free tools, Luke. – lonstar Jan 23 '14 at 00:43