Fedora Core 1 or 2 for my server?

[rurp]

Hi all!
I'll need your opinion and inputs concerning which version of Fedora Core I should choose for my server. The server will run Apache, Proftpd and Samba.

So what do the forum have to say about this?

/Rurp

[fjleal]

I'm in the process of installing a new server for a network with about 50 workstations. I'll use FC2 for that server, with Samba providing services for the Windows workstations, Apache serving the web and PostgreSQL as a background DMBS. I intend to share configuration files amongst Linux workstations using NIS. If you have FC2 available, why would you use FC1?

[rurp]

I've asked since I have heard of some problems with FC2. But since you are planing a server based on FC2 with that magnitude, those problem a surely minor or not invoking the serverside.

[deuch]

There are some problems of sounds, video or gnome menus problems ...

But for a server, kernel 2.6 add performance and stability.

For non critical environment FC2 can be a good choice ...

If you are not sure, FC1 is more mature ... :-)

deuch

[Ug]

Originally posted by rurp
I've asked since I have heard of some problems with FC2. The most common one you've heard of is probably the Win XP dual boot issue. Which is in fact a bug with nearly all 2.6 Kernel distributions, including SuSe 9.1 and Mandrake 10.

FC2 is what you really should be going for, there isn't really a choice. For a starters you're not going to have to get the same amount of updates for your system when your using Fedora Core 2 as Fedora Core 1. And secondly your going to get the enhanced performance and stability from the 2.6 kernel.

(Oh and you get the lovely Gnome 2.6)

Go FC2!

[rurp]

Okey, thnx for all inputs. I think i'll go for FC2.

(Oh and you get the lovely Gnome 2.6)

Don't realy see the meaning to have Gnome on a server....

[Ug]

Well - if you ever have to start it up locally in run level 5. You can enjoy the Gnome experience. ;)

[ilja]

Originally posted by Ug
Well - if you ever have to start it up locally in run level 5. You can enjoy the Gnome experience. ;)

Yes, but if you want to have it as webserver, then don't install any X files and x librarys. Every application, that you install is a lag of security. But if you are going to setup it with GUIs, then of course you will need it.
But to see the great Gnome experience, you could change your workstation to Fedora Core ;)

[fjleal]

I think it's a good idea to install X and Gnome on the server, given that you don't need to have X running when you're not logged in. But when you login to do maintenanace, why not use X?

[ilja]

Originally posted by fjleal
I think it's a good idea to install X and Gnome on the server, given that you don't need to have X running when you're not logged in. But when you login to do maintenanace, why not use X?
But if your server is somewhere deep in Mexico, without a terminal, and you only can access it via ssh? :D Then it is better not to have X

[fjleal]

Well, in that case, I must agree with you. No X for servers in Mexico. I'll remember it when I install a server in Mexico! :)

Apart from jokes, you're right. But if you have physical access to the server (like if you work on the building where it's located), then why not have X? Today's servers have a lot of resources. Anyway, you may not autostart X, so it won't be consuming resources on its daily work.

[ilja]

Yes, you are right, but it is not very usual, that you work in a place, where there are monitors on the servers.

[rurp]

Now is the server up and runing. I choosed FC2 and everything (Apache, Samba, Proftpd and Webmin) is working great.

Thanx for the inputs!

/Rurp

[Ug]

Originally posted by ilja
Yes, you are right, but it is not very usual, that you work in a place, where there are monitors on the servers. I dunno, we've got a switch box for our servers, which leads into one monitor. ;)

[jimbo]

I must be lazy... but even when my server is in the SAME ROOM, I rarely access it directly from it's console monitor and keyboard. I either use ssh or VNC to do maintenance and such. That way I never even have to get up and walk the 3 steps over there. Ahhh.
So just like files and hard drive space... my butt has grown to fill this office chair.

[jeru]

People at my work sometimes throw X on thier servers.... I personally don't see why you'd want to waste resources by having something that has no relivence to what the system does.

If you want a GUI for your server... Just throw webmin on there and run it through http/https.


Oh yeah... I have FC2 on 2 personal servers, at work they make me use either RHEL, SuSE or Solaris purely for support and ultimate liability issues. FC2 seems fine enough... I wouldn't worry about its stability too much. I've never had one crash or do anything funky to me.

They run mail, web, database, samba pdc's, dhcp, dns, ftp, ssh, tomcat, mono/mod_mono/xsp, etc.... (pretty much clones of each other doing about 8 or 9 domains on one, and 2 domains on the other, they also run the local networks on top of all the web stuff....)

[aditrus]

I like text mode and no X in servers. I just place our linux servers in a cabinet rack. Then remotely administer and manage the servers via SSH. I'd like to have more room for the services than X occupying them. In rack mounted servers there is no room for a monitors and keyboard.

[rurp]

I prefer to not install X on the server. Want to miniaize the install.

If you want a GUI for your server... Just throw webmin on there and run it through http/https.

Yea - Webmin (http://www.webmin.com) is very good. You can manage many servers, apps and system functions trhow it. If i dont acces my server throw Webmin i usualy use ssh.

[valer]

Did any of you have trouble getting nfs to work in rc2? I keep getting "RPC: Timed out" messages.
- All services are on and running (portmap, mountd, nfsd)
- Firewall is opened up (even tried disabling it)
- /etc/exports is correct and exported with -ra flag
- rpcinfo -p shows portmapper, status, nlockmgr, rqoutad, nfs and mountd
- showmount -e shows exports from server
- I can ping between machines (both machines fc2)

The logout script reports "RPC failed to contact portmap (errno -5)"

Anyone one else having this problem or is it just me? - thx

[mctrivia.com]

I am having trouble geting samba and up2date working on fc2. I tryed installing fc1 but it does not suport SATA and webmin does not seem to work on fc3 any recomendations on what I should try?

[fjleal]

I am having trouble geting samba and up2date working on fc2. I tryed installing fc1 but it does not suport SATA and webmin does not seem to work on fc3 any recomendations on what I should try?
I have Samba working with FC2, and it works nice. What exactly seems to be your problem? For up2date, edit /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources and add those mirrors closer to you from the mirrors list in the Fedora site.

[kosmosik]

go with FC2, there is no big (if any) difference with stability, but FC2 adds some features like SELinux, NFS4, kernel 2.6, and few others... another thing is that FC1 is soon to be outdated (no more patches) and you will need to upgrade anyway soon (or if you will still run FC1 after it is no longer supported you'll need much more hassle to maintain the system)... go with FC2 :)