OK, so now I'm gonna setup a web server on this Compaq Proliant 3000. I anticipate running Apache2, mysql, ssh, ftp, samba, and possibly Teamspeak on it. System specs are: Dual Pentium-II 400 Mhz 896MB Ram 28GB RAID 5 Storage (7 drives) What flavor of Linux would you run on it? Mainly I'm looking for someone with experience running Linux on this machine but opinions are welcome as well. -- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:24AM -0500, RtX wrote:
OK, so now I'm gonna setup a web server on this Compaq Proliant 3000. I anticipate running Apache2, mysql, ssh, ftp, samba, and possibly Teamspeak on it.
System specs are:
Dual Pentium-II 400 Mhz 896MB Ram 28GB RAID 5 Storage (7 drives)
What flavor of Linux would you run on it? Mainly I'm looking for someone with experience running Linux on this machine but opinions are welcome as well.
-- RtX...
Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
This server is old enough that I think asking for current distros that run well on it might not work. My advice is to pick a distribution you're comfortable with and go with that. Google told me that people were using Redhat 7.2 on it, but I wouldn't recommend that. :) (Purposely not suggesting a distro so as to avoid the ensuing war!) -- Kyle Sexton
On 3/12/07, Kyle Sexton <> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:24AM -0500, RtX wrote:
OK, so now I'm gonna setup a web server on this Compaq Proliant 3000. I anticipate running Apache2, mysql, ssh, ftp, samba, and possibly Teamspeak on it.
System specs are:
Dual Pentium-II 400 Mhz 896MB Ram 28GB RAID 5 Storage (7 drives)
What flavor of Linux would you run on it? Mainly I'm looking for someone with experience running Linux on this machine but opinions are welcome as well.
-- RtX...
Ty Unes
This server is old enough that I think asking for current distros that run well on it might not work. My advice is to pick a distribution you're comfortable with and go with that. Google told me that people were using Redhat 7.2 on it, but I wouldn't recommend that. :)
(Purposely not suggesting a distro so as to avoid the ensuing war!) -- Kyle Sexton
Why should it matter what distro, as long as you config it to run like a server? You could use Debian or one of the Ubuntu's, with or without a GUI based on your amount of avail. RAM, though on a server you probably don't want or need one. If you want one avail., then I'd suggest you have it not start by default, but only when you run "startx". I guess RedHat and Suse would work as well, though they are down my list of recommendations. Run what works, run what you know, run what your friends run so they can help you. That said, I'd say go with Debian or an Ubuntu Server install. Brian Kelsay
I kinda figured that this was the answer I would get. I understand that any linux distro would work, and your right, I should/could run any distro that I am comfortable with. One of the cool things about Linux is that once you know one, it's just a few readme's away from running another. I just wondered if someone had any experience with this server and a particular distro. Kind of a long-shot but what the heck. That's what a group like this is for?!?! Anyway, I do think I will run Xubuntu. Lighter duty desktop (which I will not use much at all) and Debian based which I like. On that note, what do you all feel about the differences between running Debian Testing and Debian Stable? For server use? On 3/12/07, Brian Kelsay <ripcrd@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/12/07, Kyle Sexton <> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:24AM -0500, RtX wrote:
OK, so now I'm gonna setup a web server on this Compaq Proliant 3000. I anticipate running Apache2, mysql, ssh, ftp, samba, and possibly Teamspeak on it.
System specs are:
Dual Pentium-II 400 Mhz 896MB Ram 28GB RAID 5 Storage (7 drives)
What flavor of Linux would you run on it? Mainly I'm looking for someone with experience running Linux on this machine but opinions are welcome as well.
-- RtX...
Ty Unes
This server is old enough that I think asking for current distros that run well on it might not work. My advice is to pick a distribution you're comfortable with and go with that. Google told me that people were using Redhat 7.2 on it, but I wouldn't recommend that. :)
(Purposely not suggesting a distro so as to avoid the ensuing war!) -- Kyle Sexton
Why should it matter what distro, as long as you config it to run like a server? You could use Debian or one of the Ubuntu's, with or without a GUI based on your amount of avail. RAM, though on a server you probably don't want or need one. If you want one avail., then I'd suggest you have it not start by default, but only when you run "startx".
I guess RedHat and Suse would work as well, though they are down my list of recommendations. Run what works, run what you know, run what your friends run so they can help you. That said, I'd say go with Debian or an Ubuntu Server install.
Brian Kelsay
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
"differences between running Debian Testing and Debian Stable? For server use?" Think about what you just said. Now ask yourself if this is for you or for a company that you work for? I think you will come to your own conclusion. Brian (top posting because RtX did) On 3/12/07, RtX <> wrote:
I kinda figured that this was the answer I would get. I understand that any linux distro would work, and your right, I should/could run any distro that I am comfortable with. One of the cool things about Linux is that once you know one, it's just a few readme's away from running another. I just wondered if someone had any experience with this server and a particular distro. Kind of a long-shot but what the heck. That's what a group like this is for?!?!
Anyway, I do think I will run Xubuntu. Lighter duty desktop (which I will not use much at all) and Debian based which I like. On that note, what do you all feel about the differences between running Debian Testing and Debian Stable? For server use?
On 3/12/07, Brian Kelsay <> wrote:
On 3/12/07, Kyle Sexton <> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:24AM -0500, RtX wrote:
OK, so now I'm gonna setup a web server on this Compaq Proliant 3000. I anticipate running Apache2, mysql, ssh, ftp, samba, and possibly Teamspeak on it.
System specs are:
Dual Pentium-II 400 Mhz 896MB Ram 28GB RAID 5 Storage (7 drives)
What flavor of Linux would you run on it? Mainly I'm looking for someone with experience running Linux on this machine but opinions are welcome as well.
-- RtX...
Ty Unes
This server is old enough that I think asking for current distros that run well on it might not work. My advice is to pick a distribution you're comfortable with and go with that. Google told me that people were using Redhat 7.2 on it, but I wouldn't recommend that. :)
(Purposely not suggesting a distro so as to avoid the ensuing war!) -- Kyle Sexton
Why should it matter what distro, as long as you config it to run like a server? You could use Debian or one of the Ubuntu's, with or without a GUI based on your amount of avail. RAM, though on a server you probably don't want or need one. If you want one avail., then I'd suggest you have it not start by default, but only when you run "startx".
I guess RedHat and Suse would work as well, though they are down my list of recommendations. Run what works, run what you know, run what your friends run so they can help you. That said, I'd say go with Debian or an Ubuntu Server install.
Brian Kelsay
--
RtX...
Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks.
RtX wrote:
Anyway, I do think I will run Xubuntu. Lighter duty desktop (which I will not use much at all) and Debian based which I like.
I would advise against installing X11 on a server unless the server is intended for use as a remote-desktop-ish server. It's a total waste of resources, and you are much better off using SSH for remote administration (more reliable & secure, client is more common, lower bandwidth overhead, etc.). I personally use Slackware minus the x, xap, kde, and kdei package sets on my servers. ~Bradley
On 3/12/07, RtX <riverty@gmail.com> wrote:
I kinda figured that this was the answer I would get. I understand that any linux distro would work, and your right, I should/could run any distro that I am comfortable with. One of the cool things about Linux is that once you know one, it's just a few readme's away from running another. I just wondered if someone had any experience with this server and a particular distro. Kind of a long-shot but what the heck. That's what a group like this is for?!?!
Anyway, I do think I will run Xubuntu. Lighter duty desktop (which I will not use much at all) and Debian based which I like. On that note, what do you all feel about the differences between running Debian Testing and Debian Stable? For server use?
I did have issues with an older version of Ubuntu not picking up the RAID card in a Compaq Proliant 1850R I've got, after install. It was back on something like 5.04 or 5.10, but for a Ubuntu based server, I'd surely put 6.06.1 LTS on it. That's to have support until 2011. All "current" or regular releases of Ubuntu are only good for 18 months of support/lifetime. You can also do some the install stuff along the lines of https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/LowMemorySystems and do a custom package install that would skip gdm/kdm/xdm etc so that X won't start until it's needed. By skipping all those extra packages of Xubuntu you'll have fewer things running and more drive space. Xubuntu takes around 2GB of space or so. A basic server/CLI only install of Ubuntu will take around 300MB. I've not done a LAMP of it yet (there is a official LAMP install option), but it shouldn't take nearly as much space as the full Xubuntu.
On Mon, March 12, 2007 12:36, RtX wrote:
Anyway, I do think I will run Xubuntu.
Why not Ubuntu Server? Based on 6.06 with Long Term Support. Yes, you could run just about any distro as a server, just as you can theoretically fix any problem you encounter in Linux - if you can code well enough. There are serious disadvantages to installing a Desktop-oriented distro though. I found that Mandriva 2007 took a long time to find and fix bugs in packages that were server-specific, although it's great as a desktop. I wouldn't use it for a server again, there are just too few eyes on the critical code.
I have setup a few of my clients on Xubuntu 6.06 LTS. They required a GUI to admin the server so Xubuntu was it. Still running great - no complaints. I think the only thing I want an X-windows GUI for is Synaptic. Makes software maintenence much easier than working with Aptitude. It's better from a CLI standpoint, but still not as easy to use as Synaptic. I agree with not using Gentoo. Gentoo is cool - fastest desktop I ever ran. It simply got to be a pain when 25 updates came out and I was finding my machine compiling software for 8 hours instead of using it to get my work done. Not good. BTW - Sorry about the top post. :-0 On 3/13/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
On Mon, March 12, 2007 12:36, RtX wrote:
Anyway, I do think I will run Xubuntu.
Why not Ubuntu Server? Based on 6.06 with Long Term Support.
Yes, you could run just about any distro as a server, just as you can theoretically fix any problem you encounter in Linux - if you can code well enough. There are serious disadvantages to installing a Desktop-oriented distro though. I found that Mandriva 2007 took a long time to find and fix bugs in packages that were server-specific, although it's great as a desktop. I wouldn't use it for a server again, there are just too few eyes on the critical code.
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
On Monday 12 March 2007 03:47:00 pm RtX wrote:
I think the only thing I want an X-windows GUI for is Synaptic. Makes software maintenence much easier than working with Aptitude. It's better from a CLI standpoint, but still not as easy to use as Synaptic.
I've found apt-get very easy to use, but I come from a very CLI background. Browsing is a lot easier in a GUI.
participants (6)
-
Bradley Hook -
Brian Kelsay -
Jon Pruente -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Kyle Sexton -
RtX