so, building a server

[tehchad]

I have been tossed a fun little project and thought I'd get your input (if any).

I've recently decided that Fedora is my new favorite OS so I will be using that to setup a home file server (ssh, samba, the smaller stuff; he would like to host a website in the future so http, ftp).
Anyway, I have an old case and with a meh power supply (650w) and a 250gb hdd to get me started. I'm thinking that he doesn't really need anything real crazy for this. Would there be any conflicts with this hardware?

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4248696&CatId=2320

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3776582

I'll probably get a 2gb ram stick for it and then get him setup as far as two or three hours go (or my 12-pack of IPA runs out the night we do it).

[PatMcLJr]

you'll get this sooner or later, fedora is not really a good server choice.
Oh you'll eventualy get it up a running sweet, then EOL and you're SOL

Centos maybe or Debian? FreeBSD?

hardware, hey I'm still using my XP 2100 ! If was getting a new MB and prcessor it would to be at least dual core and 2.5+ Ghz I've been drulling over the X2 6000 for a while I wish the price on it woul ease off a bit, mybe soon?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103272

Thanks for the Tiger link, I should dig throught there some. That's my 2 cents.
Best of Luck,
Pat jr.

[bd54338rre]

did you consider ubuntu server edition?
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/serveredition

As PatMcLJr remarks, Fedora is not an OS for server's

[JohnVV]

fedora can be used for a server ,IF you like installing a new version of fedora on it every 6 mo.
Having a LOT of down time do to a software update killing the os .
The last one really is not a big problem ,you just need to pay close attention to the updates .
Fedora reminds me of the `68 ford Mustang i had it was a " Fix Or Repair Daily "

if you like "fedora/red hat" then use CentOS 5.2 , it has a 5 year lifespan

[marcrblevins]

I've recently decided that Fedora is my new favorite OS so I will be using that to setup a home file server (ssh, samba, the smaller stuff; he would like to host a website in the future so http, ftp).
Anyway, I have an old case and with a meh power supply (650w) and a 250gb hdd to get me started. I'm thinking that he doesn't really need anything real crazy for this. Would there be any conflicts with this hardware?

He says 'home', so Fedora is appropriate.
If he says Production, then its CentOS if still want to use Red Hat flav commands.

Cheers

[neogranas]

I'm agreeing with Marcrblevins. I have Fedora 10 running as my home server and it is working just fine. I even host a few websites for my family-in-laws. The only downtime I have is when I do hardware upgrades. I've never had downtime due to a software issue. I haven't done too much with it besides what can come pre-installed. But I've done enough tweaking that I imagine something may break if it were that bad. I've loved it as a desktop, server, and laptop OS. I haven't really had any issues with it.

[tehchad]

wow, thanks for the input!
I messed with Ubuntu server for a month and it was meh to me. I'm really liking what I see in CentOS and I may go that route in the end. And yes, it is a HOME server. He said that he wants to host a small website/blog ish deal when he learns a bit more about it. It's going to talk about poker and a few of his friends (including me) will post on it and whatnot. It's not mission-critical or "production" as you have termed it. I figure I can learn Fedora's serving abilities (or CentOS), but I don't think I'll go after Debian unless you guys really are psyched about doing that. I may need you to hold my hand through the config of http/firewall stuff.
Besides, if I go Fedora, this forum will be a huge resource when I screw everything up! :-D

[multescugeorge@]

I've made the switch to centos 5 myself, and i host a mini-ftp site for my friends on it. All is good :)

get denyhosts, fail2ban, system-config-vsftpd (for a basic ftp server setup) and the standard firewall, and you should have no problems serving.

One thing i didn't figure out was to have kde apps to play mp3's :P, but i can live with that since mplayer, xmms and all work fine.

[tehchad]

At the urging (and threatening of my life) of a good friend who is a systems admin, I shall give in and try CentOS. I'm just waiting for some ram to come in. more later.

[JohnVV]

CentOS good choice for a server , the look is very,very,very much like fedora 6 or 7 and IS VERY STABLE

[rksplash]

I wrote a small how to for a friend that kind of deals with the basics. Mostly RedHat/Fedora but I don't think CentOS is that much different.

http://www.youcanddns.com/user1/download/

user - user1

passwd - sorry

[Firewing1]

I would recommend this motherboard and processor instead:
GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2HP AM2+/AM2 AMD 780G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128360)
AMD Athlon X2 4850e 2.5GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 45W Dual-Core Processor - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103255)
I've built a few boxes with the 780G chipset and it's amazing - performs decently, good power savings and has VGA+DVI+HDMI output! That motherboard also supports AM2+, so you'll be able to upgrade the machine to something much more powerful if the need may be. The processor is AMD's lower-end dual core CPU, but what's nice is that if offers the advantages of dual-core with a tiny 45W TDP.

[Pumpino]

Why do people always say Fedora doesn't make a good server OS because it's EOL after 12 months? I've got three boxes at home and upgraded all of them from F9 to F10 without a single issue. The box that acts as a web, mail and database server was down for about 40 minutes while I upgraded via DVD and then I rebooted and it was up for 65 days until a recent power outage. I took the opportunity to upgrade to kernel 2.6.28.1 from Koji and had no issues. In fact, I regularly download kernels from Koji on my desktop machines and during my time of using F8-10, I've never had an update cause significant problems.

While CentOS is a great distro, I've found Fedora to be just as stable AND up to date. You don't need to run ancient packages just to have stability.

[marcrblevins]

Think you missed the point. Ideally, don't want a Fedora Server running as a PRODUCTION server. Fedora updates attends to have glitches, per its a "Bleeding Edge" distro. Preferred to use CentOS for that matter.

However, you are very welcome to use Fedora as a production server at your own risk.

[Pumpino]

Fedora updates attends to have glitches, per its a "Bleeding Edge" distro.
Yeah, I understand the philosophy and agree that in theory, it makes much more sense to deploy CentOS in an organisational context. I just mean that people are always talking about Fedora releasing broken package updates or Fedora being EOL after 12 months when in practice, I've never experienced broken package updates and have successfully updated boxes to Fx + 1. I've also found that CentOS doesn't support some NICs out of the box, whereas Fedora will be network ready immediately. So from my experience, Fedora hasn't had issues like reading this forum would lead one to believe. Could it be that some people dead against using Fedora for servers experienced some issues in the early Fedora releases and haven't even tried F8, F9 or F10 as a server?

Also, I feel that the bleeding edge reference leads to a comparison of Fedora with Debian unstable (at least in my mind). I think most of us would agree that Fedora would be more suited to a server than Debian unstable. ;)

[crunched]

Well you wouldn't use Debian unstable as a production server, would you?

What everyone is trying to say - if you're going to setup a server, go with something that is designed and fit for purpose. You may have found on your home server that running fedora hasn't caused any issues for you, but that's most likely because you have a simple setup. And you're really just asking for trouble - which you obviously don't mind about because your system isn't critical, and that's fine too. But if someone asks for advice on building a server, you give them the best option - in this case, something designed and fit for purpose (ie, CentOS).

IMO - CentOS wins hands down. But then again, the majority of my day to day tasks are performed on Red Hat servers (identical to CentOS), so I'm biased. I'm sure Debian would be just as good an option, but if you're already using Fedora, then a Red Hat-based OS would be more familiar to you.

[Phantom_Lord]

Hi Guys!

I would like just to share my humble experience with You - I use Fedora 9 as OS for several desktop machines and notebooks, and Fedora 8 for two servers - one samba server for the LAN, and one http, mail, MySQL etc. server, visible from the web, for almost an year. Yes, I admit that Fedora 8 is too old already, but at the time I configured the servers Fedora 9 was still not in the stable version :) and after that - it had a lot of problems with some drivers and so on, so I decided to stay with F8, even when F10 was released.
Up till now I didn't have ANY problems related to software (almost regular updates from stable repository) - even with the web/mail/MySQL server. All the time both servers were down it was either power supply or some hardware upgrades/problems.
I do not consider any upgrades - if something works fine do not change it if there's risk to break it, instead of make it better :) .

So, my advise is simple - if You like Fedora or You're used to it, and You don't want to try something different, no matter how close is it to Fedora - just try with it as a server, You might be surprised of its performance :). If things are not ok - You can go to CentOS at any time!

Regards,
P.L.

P.S. As for the supported hardware - in my experience I've had problems only with the latest components on the market - embedded LAN/WLAN/ cards, HD audio, embedded VGAs and so on. But if You use "bleeding edge" hardware combined with "bleeding edge" software (what the latest for the moment Fedora usually is) - it is possible to be OK. Just use the latest kernel and the respective drivers and it MIGHT be OK, even there is still chance to buy some Linux/Fedora unsupported hardware, so read carefully before taking the decision.

[rksplash]

Doesn't really matter what OS you choose. If down time is that big of an issue hardware is so cheap now you can set up 2 identical machines with the same software set up. Extra bonus is 0 downtime if you loose a drive or whatever. The guy behind the keyboard is the one calling the shots, not the OS.

[Firewing1]

Let's just remember though, the OP is setting up a home server... Fedora will do just fine for that. I've had Fedora running my local filesharing, database and web server for a few years now and there's been no major problems.

[stevea]

Let's just remember though, the OP is setting up a home server... Fedora will do just fine for that. I've had Fedora running my local filesharing, database and web server for a few years now and there's been no major problems.

I agree w/ most of your comment Firewing, particularly the hardware recommendations.

A server is likely headless, so you don't need a graphics card at all and certainly not an expensive or performance graphics.

Home servers are presumably powered-up 24x7 if they are used for things like mail service, file service, music service, print service, torrent offload or remote access service. This dicates a low power system and time should be spent honing the code to idle disks, mount w/o access time updates (-o noatime for example), speedstep/policy. Possibly suspension w/ wake-on-lan or other schemes could be employed to keep the power drain low and he accessibility high.

I don't like the OPs hardware choice for another reason. The 10/100 enet is a serious bottleneck. You can do sequential disk reads at ~100MBPS these days and after layering a file system you can get perhaps 50MBPS. The 100mbit enet will roughly support 10MBPS data transfer while a Gbit can exceed 80MBPS. 100mbit enet is a bad choice for a server. Also the Gbit intefaces which directly attached to the bridges have a performance advantage and lower overhead than seperate PCI card solutions.

I've used a Fedora server since at least FC4 and it *IS* a lot of unnecessary trouble. The sevrer is critical since it consolidates and serves all my email, so I can't afford substantial downtime. Because it's fedora I feel obliged to stay on a supported release - so I have to update at least every 12 months. We've had a few critical have issues like the major security hole that appeared ~F7 or F8 in the kernel (allows any user to become root by cracking the VM) - and if I wasn't on a supported release couldn't get a patch for it. This would be MUCH easier on Centos where I could just install and glide on updates for 5 years.

The idea that since an upgrade from F9 to F10 worked cleanly that Fedora server maintenance is trivial and that problems are ancient history is baloney. Just read this forum for F10 glitches and image the problem these would cause on a server. For example DNS client was broken on F10 for some configs - that would pretty much ruin your life if that problem struck your server.

When I upgrade my server I install the later release and dual boot while I test. EVERY time I upgrade it requires several days of work and testing and there are always config changes. The postfix config file syntax changes, spamassasin moves it's binaries and changes the configs, the defaults and setup tools for "alternatives" has changed radically. The drive names change from /dev/hda /dev/sda necessitating script and fstab changes. The libata interface is inserted breaking some disk ioctl's I was using. The default firewall and SELinux setting change requiring manipulation. kernel module names change breaking modprobe scripts. Fedora releases often change the SSL certs directory structure and the openssl.cnf file contents usually breaking SSL ((the config on F10 is broken out of the box btw)). The two enet interface names (eth0, eth1) have changed back and forth even on the same Fedora release after update. It changes again at F10. BTW the interface name assignment is currently handled by udevd which didn't even exist on F4. NFSv4 config and capabilities and the protocol detail has changed a lot since F7. I don't use samba, but I'd wager it's config has changed. The idea that all the major upheavals and big changes are in the past is foolish.

Once you are up & running on Fn you *usually* have a low maintenance situation, except you should only manually "yum update" and then reboot & test after every update ((which explains why I only update the sever every few months unless I read of a problem)). More than once in the past ~3 years I've done a "yum update" on the server and then a reboot (from a remote ssh session) - only to find the system didn't come back ... time to attach a monitor and debug the situation.

So yes using Fedora for a server over a period of years has been a big time sink. and definitely not smart from the perspective of return on effort. The only justification is that it's an educational experience.

RHEL6 (similar to F10) is due out in about 1 year (Q1, '10) and that will be a good time for me to switch to Centos 6 (hopefully a quarter later).

[tehchad]

WOW! a whole #$%^-ton of discussion! yeah, so this guy wants something that I can teach him my very limited knowledge of linux with. This is not a mission critical ER solution for a military insurgency. This is something that is just short of fun. I'm still going with CentOS, but wow.

plz pull panties out of bind.

edit, thanks firewing/stevea/et al for recommendations. I'm feeling really good about the whole deal at this point. I'm just waiting for the ram to come in in a couple of days. :-)

[tehchad]

A server is likely headless, so you don't need a graphics card at all and certainly not an expensive or performance graphics.

I don't like the OPs hardware choice for another reason. The 10/100 enet is a serious bottleneck. You can do sequential disk reads at ~100MBPS these days and after layering a file system you can get perhaps 50MBPS. The 100mbit enet will roughly support 10MBPS data transfer while a Gbit can exceed 80MBPS. 100mbit enet is a bad choice for a server. Also the Gbit intefaces which directly attached to the bridges have a performance advantage and lower overhead than seperate PCI card solutions.

It will be headless after we get things setup and tested for the first weekish, or whatever he feels like. (it's not my floorspace that is being taken up :D)

I was thinking of giving him a gigabit ethernet card for this, but I wasn't sure how many people he wants to have constantly on his site. In the end, I probably will, but I'm gonna get a digital camera for myself first! In the mean time, he's going to run with a seperate 10/100 out of my old workstation. There is onboard ethernet, but I've not really enjoyed this much in the past on any solution.

[Pumpino]

RHEL6 (similar to F10) is due out in about 1 year (Q1, '10)
Thanks for the info. Can I ask where you heard this? The last I heard was that they were extending the life of RHEL 5 and there was no timeline for RHEL 6. Will it definitely be based on F10? Thanks.

[Flak Pyro]

I would recommend this motherboard and processor instead:
GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2HP AM2+/AM2 AMD 780G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128360)
AMD Athlon X2 4850e 2.5GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 45W Dual-Core Processor - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103255)
I've built a few boxes with the 780G chipset and it's amazing - performs decently, good power savings and has VGA+DVI+HDMI output! That motherboard also supports AM2+, so you'll be able to upgrade the machine to something much more powerful if the need may be. The processor is AMD's lower-end dual core CPU, but what's nice is that if offers the advantages of dual-core with a tiny 45W TDP.

How is the linux support with this chipset? Im looking at building a low power file server and if compatability in linux is good this im going to heavily consider this option, i have been looking at the power power core 2/Pentium dual core line thus far. :)

[Firewing1]

How is the linux support with this chipset? Im looking at building a low power file server and if compatability in linux is good this im going to heavily consider this option, i have been looking at the power power core 2/Pentium dual core line thus far. :)
The two computers I've used it in were PC I was building for friends (Windows as the primary and only OS), so I can't say for sure... However, I've read excellent reviews about the 780G under Linux (just search Phoronix) and according to hardware4linux.info, a similar board by Gigabyte, the GA-MA78GPM-DS2H, works pretty well out-of-the-box.

BTW, if you're going for low power AMD is definitely the way to go. If you compare an AMD processor to an Intel one of the same price you may not get the best performance in benchmarks, but AMD is known for delivering an excellent power/performance ratio (and besides, if you're finding things get too slow in few years, you'll also be able to upgrade to a Phenom as the board supports AM2+). To make things better, with Intel's latest batch of CPUs the prices of AMD CPUs have been lowered!

[Flak Pyro]

Yeah the biggest thing im looking for is low power, low heat, low noise as its doing strictly file serving looking at intels offerings i dont see anything in their dual core line up under 65W on the desktop, at least that i can find? ..not that it matters too much 45W vs 65 to me but i also notice the AMD side is quite a bit cheaper. This project is forcing me to think differently about this build vs my normal gaming pc builds :) This would be my first AMD processor since a first generation semperon!

[Firewing1]

What's sort-of funny about that 45W CPU too is that it can game... Nothing too intense, but it can run the older games (Starcraft, Warcraft III, Need for Speed etc) no problem and it'll handle some of the newer ones at low framerates too.

[Flak Pyro]

Yeah i seen some benchmarks of that 790G mobo running Half life 2 maxed out @ 1024x768 not bad at all for onboard video, not that it matters in my situation, my only concern is the chipsets compatibility with linux, the video card having 3d isnt important since i will be running it headless but i want to make sure im maximizing the chipsets capability when it comes to IO and such....because of that im still leaning to the better supported intel chipsets, what a decision haha.