Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm in the process of setting up a file server for about 6 people. Windows 7 isn't meant to be used as a server, but given the small amount of clients, I wonder what kind of obstacles could I face if I went this route. I'll consider other alternatives like an integrated NAS device, a Linux machine or a fully fledged Windows 2008 server, but for a number of reasons (mainly familiarity) I'm interested in getting to know reasons not choose this option.

So, what are the cons of using a Windows 7 pc as a file server for around 6 client pcs?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by HopelessN00b, Michael Hampton, Sven, EEAA, Dave M Mar 12 '13 at 21:33

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

EVERYTHING. – HopelessN00b Mar 12 '13 at 20:55
Just go for something running FreeNAS or Nexentastor. It'll save you trouble in the long run. Also, Windows 7 has a limit of 10 concurrent connections to it's shares, so if one person has 4 documents open, that's instaly 4 slots used. No, it's not possible to get around. Yes, you should consider an alternative. – tombull89 Mar 12 '13 at 20:57
@tombull89: I thought it was 20 connections on W7, though that is likely the biggest issue in this scenario. – Smig Mar 12 '13 at 21:12
You would probably be better off looking at a Windows Home Server box, or Server Essentials if you want Windows. You get a light server that runs Windows. There are dozens of Linux solutions that will work though. – Zoredache Mar 12 '13 at 21:14

Lack of proper access control, no logging, possible concurrency problems (multiple simultaneous access), performance, and a few more besides. However to be fair thousands (if not millions) of SMEs and SOHO users around the world have been doing similar for years.

It depends how much control you want, how important performance is, how critical downtime is, how good your backups are (for corrupt files overwritten).

share|improve this answer
You can enable auditing on a Windows 7. You can setup per-user accounts and use full NTFS ACLs. – Zoredache Mar 12 '13 at 21:10
Auditing to record all file accesses? I did not know that (+1 Zoredache). Access control can indeed be per-user but separate from the user logged into the client unless you're using a domain in which case you have a PDC which can act as file server. – Dave Mar 12 '13 at 21:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.