Fedora Core 1 or 2 for my server?

rurp · #1 10th June 2004, 10:14 PM

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 · #2 10th June 2004, 10:41 PM

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 · #3 10th June 2004, 10:46 PM

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 · #4 10th June 2004, 11:29 PM

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 · #5 11th June 2004, 03:08 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 11th June 2004, 03:46 AM

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

Quote:

(Oh and you get the lovely Gnome 2.6)

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

Ug · #7 11th June 2004, 04:19 AM

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

ilja · #8 11th June 2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

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 · #9 11th June 2004, 07:12 AM

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 · #10 11th June 2004, 07:18 AM

Quote:

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?

Then it is better not to have X

fjleal · #11 11th June 2004, 08:25 AM

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 · #12 11th June 2004, 08:40 AM

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

rurp · #13 14th June 2004, 03:54 AM

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 · #14 14th June 2004, 05:46 AM

Quote:

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 · #15 14th June 2004, 06:28 AM

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.