Fedora as server?

[loc]

Hi all,

I have a question regarding using Fedora as (file)server. I've been reading loads of reviews about Fedora being targeted for the desktop, which is supported by the fact Red Hat Enterprise Linux was released (specifically for companies, not so much for homeusers i assume).

So i guess my question would be: is Fedora fit to be used for a stable server environment? Or is it not mature enough/not targeted for proper server-use? If not i will stick with RedHat 9 i think.

Thank you all for your views, loc

[owensleftfoot]

We have several customers running fedora with squid and postfix with no probs at all. After all fedora is basically redhat 10 :)

[Ug]

Originally posted by loc
So i guess my question would be: is Fedora fit to be used for a stable server environment? Absolutely. This very site is being run off a Fedora Core 1 server.

Fedora Core 1 like owensleftfoot says is virtually Red Hat 10. Every major release of Fedora Core can be expected to be as stable as an equivalent Red Hat release. Its only unstable if you download a test like the Fedora Core 2 test 2 which is available at the moment.

Core releases are stable.

[edal]

Works fine - go for it !!

Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary

[awesomejt]

Don't believe the marketing hype from RedHat. RH wants you to think that Fedora is the playground and test environment and not worth of a production/server system.

Although it is true that RedHat takes the technology implemented in Fedora and puts it into RHEL after additional testing -- the major thing you get with RHEL is support. RedHat does not "officially" support Fedora. You are on your own. So, that puts the Linux community about 5 years ago when there weren't many companies offering support. Big deal! Debian has always been t that way. The "official" support avenues have always been newsgroups, usenet, other websites, etc.

I have 3 production servers: 1 Windows 2003 box and 2 fedora boxes. Guess who keeps locking up and needs restarting? Yeap, Windows! Also, I have to admin the Windows box more because of viruses/trojans/IIS hacks/etc. Personally, I believe that Fedora Core 1 is more ready for a server/Internet system than Windows 2003. I only speak from personal experience.

[Ug]

Originally posted by awesomejt
Don't believe the marketing hype from RedHat. RH wants you to think that Fedora is the playground and test environment and not worth of a production/server system. Not entirely. Red Hat say that Fedora can work fine as a production/server system, just that it won't have the round the clock support that RHEL will have.

[ewdi]

as a matter of fact, fedoraforum is running with fedora :p

[Ug]

Originally posted by Ug
Absolutely. This very site is being run off a Fedora Core 1 server.

Beat ya to it. ;)

[fjleal]

How about a network of Fedora clients (the workstations) and a Fedora server (a central unit acting as web server, file server, ftp server, ..., and users manager)? Has anyone got any experience with such a scenario? Would you use NIS, OpenLDAP, or...? How would you configure it?

[Jman]

The thing I like about Linux is the ability to disable what you want. You could install some servers on Fedora and disable the graphics and get a server with very little overhead doing something else. Try doing that with Windows.

The main differences between Red Hat Enterprise and Fedora are that Fedora does not have paid support and hasn't been proven for months on end. There is a Windows analogy: Windows 2000 has been proven in business and institution use for a long time. Windows XP has more features, but still many prefer 2000. (Maybe this is a bad analogy, both have a support policy.)

I'm of the opinion that you can run servers from just about any stable Linux distro. Under the hood they are all much the same. :)

[kosmosik]

I use Fedora on few servers which are usualy file/print/domain servers and routers for medium (or small rather) networks with 50 users or so and it runs fine and stable. Uptimes I get are close to time Fedora releases new kernel - so I only reboot with new kernel. It is stable when you set it up properly. I also run one server which serves an WWW based application for local intranet and also runs OK.

Only problem i've got is with HP Laser Jet 1300. After few days (namely 20 or so) the printer goes offline - it says "hplaser1 not ready" and printer does not work. :-) I've tried to debug it but no effects. Will work on that. Reseting printer works so I instructed one user to do so if printer does not respond and it works. But I don't think it is Fedora specific problem - such thing happens with all software/hardware. It's normal.

Only concern about Fedora on server is rapid developement cycle and short lifetime - so you will need to upgrade your system once a year. But for me it is no problem. I like new features and upgrades are quite smooth. Just wait few weeks after release, read people comments on upgrade (problems etc.) and it goes as smooth as downloading new packages and doing some fixing (mostly in config files when some application changes).

So I think Fedora handles server tasks very good. RHEL is for people that need long product lifetime, support and stuff like that - if you don't need that you can use Fedora.

[Kilo]

Originally posted by Jman

You could install some servers on Fedora and disable the graphics and get a server with very little overhead doing something else. I may wish to do this. It's useful to have the graphical interface available during set-up, but when I release a machine into a server environment I like the idea of disabling the graphics to reduce overhead.

How would I go about doing this?

Incidently I'm pleased to hear that Fedora has been used successfully in anger in a server environment, as I'm about to do just that!

[hob]

Kilo,

I think that all you need to do is edit a line in /etc/inittab:

id:5:initdefault:

to read:

id:3:initdefault:

and reboot.

[jult]

Originally posted by kosmosik
Only concern about Fedora on server is rapid developement cycle and short lifetime - so you will need to upgrade your system once a year. But for me it is no problem. I like new features and upgrades are quite smooth. Just wait few weeks after release, read people comments on upgrade (problems etc.) and it goes as smooth as downloading new packages and doing some fixing (mostly in config files when some application changes).
So I think Fedora handles server tasks very good. RHEL is for people that need long product lifetime, support and stuff like that - if you don't need that you can use Fedora.
In reality the rapid development cycle and short lifetime are merely marketing arguments to get RH to sell a little better.
In real life situations a RH server needs just as much updating as a Fedora Core one, and with Fedora you'll even be running on faster kernels sooner than those stuck with the 'long life' RH-supported servers.

That is not even saying that a long life does not exist in a computer-environment these days. Statistics show that you will be upgrading your server within 6 years anyway. Fedora Core 1 will still be there after 6 years, and will still run OK, and you'll even have updated and patched all known security-holes by then, so really, take all this bladibla with a grain of salt...

I use Fedora Core in production environment, both for servers as well as for Desktops. I noticed that support from the huge userbase for fedora is actually better than that for many other distro's. FC seems to have attracted a smart average of linux (and ex-Windows) users, and I predict the future for FedoraCore will be a secure one.

This is only my second post in this forum, which proves just that:
I didn't even need to ask anyone to get it to work fine for me. There has not been a problem not already asked by anyone before me, so I found solutions using google and other sources along the way.

[kosmosik]

Originally posted by jult
In reality the rapid development cycle and short lifetime are merely marketing arguments to get RH to sell a little better.
I have to disagree on that. Fact is that with Fedora you must (or at least should) upgrade your distro because when new release is out the old one is only supported (read: security fixes) 6 months. This means that with two releases per year you need to upgrade once a year. Or if you don't want to upgrade you need to package patched stuff by yourself - which may be time/resource consuming. With f.e. Debian or Commercial RHEL you don't need to upgrade frequently. That is a fact not marketing.

In real life situations a RH server needs just as much updating as a Fedora Core one
I don't mean updating like installing updates but upgrading entire distro. And it is not true. Once you have server running you don't really need to upgrade it. What for since it is running well? When it works - dont repair it - Mac Guyvers first rule. ;-)

Statistics show that you will be upgrading your server within 6 years anyway. Fedora Core 1 will still be there after 6 years, and will still run OK, and you'll even have updated and patched all known security-holes by then, so really, take all this bladibla with a grain of salt...
Oh yes - and you are going to make updated packages yourself? Then consider that it is time consuming.

[kosmosik]

Erm I mean that Fedoras life-cycle is shorter then Debians or RHEL and this is fact. It makes no sense to discuss it. What is under discussion is are those upgrades a big deal? Well that depends on your situation. If you run a stock system only from distribution packages not modified and all then upgrade is smooth. But if you run a modified system with custom apps often designed for certain versions of libraries and so on then upgrade may be a little hassle. For example you'll need to debug an existing and already running application against new envirement or refine your configuration etc. etc. So it is an issue. And it is good to know about it when you make a decision about what system to use.

[fjleal]

I use Fedora on few servers which are usualy file/print/domain servers and routers for medium (or small rather) networks with 50 users or so and it runs fine and stable.
Just for curiosity, how do you setup your domain servers? Do you use NIS, or OpenLdap?...

I'm in the process of deploying a FC1 network with abot 50 workstations, so I'd like to hear other people experiences. Thanks!

[jult]

Originally posted by kosmosik
I have to disagree on that. Fact is that with Fedora you must (or at least should) upgrade your distro because when new release is out the old one is only supported (read: security fixes) 6 months.
And my experience with similar linux distributions is that the 'is not supported' part only stems from RH itself, not from its userbase. Wanna bet I can still get FC1 updates/patches for years to come?
Same with Microsoft, they have long ago claimed to stop supporting Windows 98 and NT4, yet one can still get updates everywhere.
This means that with two releases per year you need to upgrade once a year. With f.e. Debian or Commercial RHEL you don't need to upgrade frequently. That is a fact not marketing.
Still, you make it sound as if upgrading the distro is a difficult thing. I have had no big problems with the upgrade process before, and I expect not to have them this time (even less than before, all upgrades related to RH went smooth for me in recent years).
Also, we're past the 6 months now, yet yum updates kernels and dependencies just fine. I really don't see the problem.
Fedora Core 1 is just a name, not much more. The only differences being the location of files and directories, and some libraries it uses. Well newsflash: It is like that with EVERY distribution.
Oh yes - and you are going to make updated packages yourself? Then consider that it is time consuming.
Compiling is an automated process even doable for the inexperienced linux user, so why should anyone be worried?
I have units still running fine on RH 6.2, and they are fully patched for security, and guess what? That version of RH is no longer being 'supported', now is it? So yes, it IS all just marketing lingo, even the use of the word 'support' is quite new in the linux-world. It's RH-Linux based, hence: it will be supported.

[Ug]

(Getting a bit heated in here isn't it?)

Some interesting points though.

[kosmosik]

Originally posted by jult
Still, you make it sound as if upgrading the distro is a difficult thing. I have had no big problems with the upgrade process before, and I expect not to have them this time (even less than before, all upgrades related to RH went smooth for me in recent years).
As I've said - that depends on your setup. When you have custom applications built and tested against certain software versions (let's say f.e. kernel 2.4) than it is a bit hassle upgrading to 2.6. And since things work why you need to upgrade? With Fedora you need to do so because distro is not supported after 6 months from last upgrade.

Fedora Core 1 is just a name, not much more. The only differences being the location of files and directories, and some libraries it uses. Well newsflash: It is like that with EVERY distribution.
No it is not. Debian has years of life time, Fedora has months. This is a fact. I don't understand why you try to disuss with facts.

Compiling is an automated process even doable for the inexperienced linux user, so why should anyone be worried?
I wouldnt trust packages with for example OpenSSH or something critical in my system to be compiled by inexperienced user. You would? I also don't consider myself as expert in everything in my system. I mean that I prefer to use package made by an expert in let's say bind - such person for sure knows what she/he is doing.

I have units still running fine on RH 6.2, and they are fully patched for security, and guess what? That version of RH is no longer being 'supported', now is it? So yes, it IS all just marketing lingo, even the use of the word 'support' is quite new in the linux-world. It's RH-Linux based, hence: it will be supported.
Well I work for support company focusing also Linux... :-)

[kosmosik]

Originally posted by fjleal
Just for curiosity, how do you setup your domain servers? Do you use NIS, or OpenLdap?...

I'm in the process of deploying a FC1 network with abot 50 workstations, so I'd like to hear other people experiences. Thanks!
We mostly use Samba with LDAP or in smaller networks Samba and UNIX passwords on server. That is because we mostly use Windows on workstations. Linux lacks software that we need to work with. :-\

[fjleal]

Originally posted by kosmosik
We mostly use Samba with LDAP or in smaller networks Samba and UNIX passwords on server. That is because we mostly use Windows on workstations. Linux lacks software that we need to work with. :-\

Do you have Windows workstations authenticating users in a Samba server? I didn't know you could setup Samba this way. (Gotta learn a lot about Samba...) Can a Win2K or XP login to a Samba server like if it was a Windows 2K Server PDC? That could be very useful...

[slimak]

HI!
I have read this and i was wondering about - fedora as a firewall.

What do you think about it? Maybe for firewall will be better - debian or slackware?

Personaly I don't think fedora is good for a server instalation. Why? Becouse when you do lsmod or ps aux sometime you can see many processes, modules whitch are unnecesary. Smallest instalation of fedora is about 500-600MB - slackware, debian about 200MB. This is the difference - when you want to know what is happening in your system fedora is not a good choice.

I'm opened for the discussion. :-)

BTW sorry for my english ;)

[slimak]

hey people say something...

[fjleal]

Fedora has several installation options. You can adopt a server configuration or a workstation one. You can also select individual packages (rpms), on a custom configuration. The total size of the installation depends on the packets you choose.

[slimak]

i know that it has a server, desktop and couple of more options. But eweryone say that this distro is not good for server - we do servers in debian, slack, pld - desktops in fedora, mandrake etc.

Give me any reasons for that fedora is good for server instalaction or it's better then debian or slackware.

[fjleal]

It's not better nor worse. The few graphical utilities that the RedHat or Mandrake teams include in their distributions do not change what lies beneath. They're intended to avoid the need to deal with configuration files, specially for newbies. Servers often don't even include a GUI. Excluding the graphical applications, all GNU/Linux distributions include a common core of the main GNU applications (like gcc) and the Linux kernel. Under the hood, they're very similar.

[ewdi]

one tools i love the most is webmin, it's web based but it have almost everything you need :p

[fjleal]

That's very nice for remotely administering a server.

[ewdi]

yeah, and usermin is another nice thing that compliment webmin, it allow users to have their own control panel

[lmyrick]

How about a network of Fedora clients (the workstations) and a Fedora server (a central unit acting as web server, file server, ftp server, ..., and users manager)? Has anyone got any experience with such a scenario? Would you use NIS, OpenLDAP, or...? How would you configure it?

Check out http://k12ltsp.org/ for one scenario.

-leland-

[jult]

No it is not. Debian has years of life time, Fedora has months. This is a fact. I don't understand why you try to disuss with facts.
Fact is that Fedora Core does not have a 'life-cycle' or something resembling a 'short life time'. It's the hardware that will determine how long your server/desktop will last, not the software. This is even more true with machines running on Fedora Core, since most (if not all) software problems will be solved in due time (that is the whole point of fedora).

By the way, most of the servers that I had running on FC1 are now running fine on FC2. :)
And they are now running OK on FC3. The upgrade went smooth. In fact, FC3 finally handles the SMP kernel the way it should on one of my servers.
So much for that alleged short lifetime of fedora ;-)

[rkl]

I've now set up 4 Dell PowerEdge servers with FC2 and did come across minor niggles:

The tg3 Gigabit Ethernet card driver that comes with FC2 doesn't play nicely with Broadcom BCM57XX cards, so I had to compile the official Broadcom driver (which is GPL'ed, so I can't understand why FC2 doesn't come with it!).

I've discovered (the hard way, but you learn) that power cycling an FC2 server using ext3 can not only result in bad inodes, but FC2 can actually crash if it hits those bad inodes (e.g. our full backups managed that feat quite spectacularly overnight). The ungainly workaround was to force a full fsck on startup after every unclean shutdown (yes, negates much of the benefit of a journaling file system, but gives us peace of mind).

No Dell OpenManage Server Administrator software is available yet that will work on FC2 (it's a kernel 2.6 issue), which is frustrating because that's the only way you can enable the useful watchdog hardware (auto-reboot on a complete machine crash) on PowerEdge servers.

Oracle 9.2.0.4.0 (latest Oracle 9i) doesn't seem to install on FC2 (yes, had several goes at it, taking in all the advice after a lot of Googling, but no luck yet). Rumours are that Oracle 10g may install (with some tweaking) on FC2 though, but we don't want to move to 10g yet. Ended up putting Red Hat Linux 8.0 on one of the PowerEdges instead and installing 9i on that.

One FC1 note here - couldn't install FC1 at all (hung in Anaconda as it was "Transferring image to hard drive" just before the package installation begins) on the PowerEdges, but FC2 went on as smooth as butter. Overall, I'm fairly happy with FC2 on the servers - yes, if I waited until RHEL4 beta came out, I bet Oracle and Dell would sort out their software and get it working on kernel 2.6 machines, but I'm not surprised that closed proprietary (and in Oracle's case, expensive) isn't keeping up to date with a kernel that's been out for over 6 months...

Oh and as for the "you have to upgrade Fedora Core at least once a year", has everyone suddenly forgotten the Fedora Legacy project at http://fedoralegacy.org/ ? They release serious bug fixes/security fixes for older Red Hat versions (and will add FC1 and FC2 when FC3 and FC4 respectively come out).

[termleech]

Yea, even with RedHat 8 and 9, the tg3 drivers didn't work. The server would hang every so often and have to be hard rebooted. It's good to see the bug still isn't fixed.

[awesomejt]

Gosh, this is sooo easy, I'm surprised no one has said it yet:

IT'S NOT WINDOWS!!!!!

Now, I think the original aurgument was the Slack or Debian were server Linux distributions and Fedora was not. I don't buy this, you can say that Slack or Deb may make a "better" server than Fedora, but Fedora has served me well as a server a while (since I was forced to upgrade from RH Linux 7.3). I think saying that Fedora isn't a server is plain silly, especially if the reason is the "minimal" install is smaller under other distros. If that was the measuring stick, then Knoppix would rule -- I can fit it on a 50 MB business-card sized mini-CD.

Bottom line is, Fedoar is just as much Linux as Debian or any other distro. You can install whatever you want -- including X, Gnome, KDE for desktop use or plain nothing but Apache, a few needed libs, and the kernel. Distros give some additional flexibilities and include a set number of packages to make it easy to setup the type of system you want.

Considering how inexpensive disk drives are these days, I'm not worried about a larger/smaller footprint.

[backroger]

I have 3 production servers: 1 Windows 2003 box and 2 fedora boxes. Guess who keeps locking up and needs restarting? Yeap, Windows! Also, I have to admin the Windows box more because of viruses/trojans/IIS hacks/etc. Personally, I believe that Fedora Core 1 is more ready for a server/Internet system than Windows 2003. I only speak from personal experience.

Same here!....we got 3 application/production servers 1 Windows 2003 hosting MS Great Plains (GIS) and 2 SCO Unix (3.2v4.2 & Openserver 5.06a) running Unify Accell/Dataserver. Windows 2003 does the Blue Screen almost 4 times a day...we currently don't know which is the culrpit....is it the Windows 2003 or the Great Plains...anyway they are both MS bloated while the *nix runs 24/7 without any hitch!

Last June, we have decided to upgrade our Unify Accell to the more recent versions and had a problem choosing between Linux & SCO. Due to some litigation problem between those two and Unify Accell only ported the SCO Openserver up to 5.06 to their product line Version 7.1 while the RHEL AS 3.0 ported to Version 8.3E....

http://www.unify.com/support/products_tables/cpt/cpt2.htm

We have decided to go on RHEL AS 3.0 route for Unify Accell...currenlty were re-compiling our Unify in house application source code to RHEL and doing a parallel run. Also, using RHEL for gatewaying the SCO's while doing the parallel run and hosting a Web Server, FileServer, & Print Server.

Bottom line we have a critical application running so we decided for RHEL support. If were only doing a Gateway, Web Server, Fileserver, & Print Server.....we rather use Fedora or RH 9.0....but certainly not Microsoft Windows. :D

My 2 cents. on RHEL vs Fedora.

[ewdi]

Many hosting company depend on fedora topower their linux hosting server, i think majority uses redhat 7.3 as far as i know from many friends that are running hosting company, but soem has started to crawl into fedora circle.

[dr_rude]

Good day,

I'm running e-smith for my server for almost 3 years now.
And 1 box running with Redhat 7. There's no problem at all!

But i'll try to use fedora too to run our Intranet soon. I guess tis is the good idea. ;)

4 box running with WinNT/WinXP. But we need to monitor it more with all the patches, antivirus definitions and IIS attacked. :rolleyes:

I hope tis distro with help me soon as my secure enviroment for our ministry Intranet.