brubakes Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 When it comes to a web server, what distribution of Linux do you use or do you prefer? Why?
CyberNerd Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Centos because it's an enterprise ready rehash of Redhat and has lots of support. I'd also consider Ubuntu server because it will configure LAMP out of the box (a complete ready to use lamp server in 15 min) and is good for bleeding edge stuff. Mostly I have ubuntu desktop and centos servers.Debian would also be a good choice.
Diello Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Ubuntu (in Server CLI mode), CentOS, Fedora Core
Guest Guest Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Debian and Ubuntu because of the good support/documentation, plus they are really easy to use.
Joedetic Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Whilst previously I would have suggested that you use Ubuntu, because it is good, it's there, it works and is easy to get running quickly. I favour Debian based when it comes to Linux. But for servers I tend to shy away from Linux altogether now. FreeBSD. See the light.
dhicks Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Anything that runs okay in a virtual machine - Gobuntu Server CLI. Seemingly there's supposed to be a VM-optomised version of Ubuntu around, announced a couple of months ago, but I never did find a link to actually download a copy. FreeBSD: good point. SunOS now, too. I wanted to run it and its snazzy file system on our shiny new server, but the install CD wouldn't even boot (probably my somewhat jury-rigged server). I reckon that more computing in the future will move to the web browser client / web server model, even on home computer systems. The ineresting thing is that a large number of homes already run an always-on, silent, fanless, webserver in the form of a broadband router. Technology has now advanced to the point where a system the size and price of a router a year or two ago could now handle being a web server capable of file storage, word processing, etc. What would also be interesting is to start distributing operating systems as ready-to-run virtual machines. OS upgrades would consist of simply dropping a new VM in place of the old one, with writeable data being stored on a seperate filesystem. With quad-core processors probably the standard desktop machine soon, home PCs will easily be able to handle running a couple of operating systems at the same time. The "desktop" OS could completly disapear, people would just use the web browser for everything. -- David Hicks
localzuk Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 I use Ubuntu LTS, but have used debian, centos and even fedora core in the past. They are all pretty similar now days, you just choose the one you are most used to.
openhgs Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Fedora for desktops, file server, thin client server, LAMP box, print server; anything really. I first installed Redhat professionally back in the 5.2 days (and later 7.1 for home use) and I don't see any reason to change after all these years. I've briefly tried Suse, Ubuntu, Mandriva and FreeBSD but I found annoyances in each, which Fedora doesn't have, so I've always returned. If I had my way we would all be running AIX.
Joedetic Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 I found annoyances in FreeBSD to begin with but learnt to love it quite quickly. It's an adjustment, but it does you good to go out of your comfort zone once in a while.
plexer Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Server. Or later version if 6.06 doesn't support the hardware. Choose lamp install, done Ben
torledo Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Fedora for desktops, file server, thin client server, LAMP box, print server; anything really. I first installed Redhat professionally back in the 5.2 days (and later 7.1 for home use) and I don't see any reason to change after all these years. I've briefly tried Suse, Ubuntu, Mandriva and FreeBSD but I found annoyances in each, which Fedora doesn't have, so I've always returned. If I had my way we would all be running AIX. Do you have any AIX experience openhgs ? From what I've read about it, and some of the features it's looks like a top-notch OS. The marriage of AIX 5.x with the Power5 hardware looks particularly good, with LPAR micro-partitioning. Plus i've heard good things about the SMIT management interface.... We're looking to get an entry-level pseries box and maybe carve it up to run AIX and RHEL for Power. UK prices aren't advertised anywhere and have no idea what features of AIX are free or require additional cost i.e LPARs, and the APV (advanced power virtualization) features, aswell as the VIO server feature. Could you PM me to advise ?
openhgs Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Do you have any AIX experience openhgs ? From what I've read about it, and some of the features it's looks like a top-notch OS. The marriage of AIX 5.x with the Power5 hardware looks particularly good, with LPAR micro-partitioning. Plus i've heard good things about the SMIT management interface.... 8 years as a systems administrator on various RS/6000s and Motorolla Powerstacks. SP/2 experience too. The P5 hardware wasn't around when I worked on AIX. It really is a great o/s. SMIT is a menu driven interface for systems admin, which works on gui and tty. It provides a front end to the commands, and you can ask SMIT to display the command that you should have entered to achieve the task. A great way to learn the command line. If you run it via GUI, you get the running man (who falls over if the command fails). If you have an IBM support contract, it is brilliant. Your first caller is the receptionist who has 65 chars to enter a description of your problem. You are then put through to a sysadmin, someone experienced but has access to the IBM database. If they can't solve your problem, one of the developers will contact you, and if they can't help you, well your f**ked! The LVM is second to none. You can increase the size of filesystem and you can create or remove mirrors on the fly, assuming you have spare disks installed, or a hot swappable array. One of the systems that I worked on had an Oracle database, running on a mirrored array. Backing up a database is always a nightmare, especially if the database is in use, which this always was. (It was a 7x24 ordering system.) We negotiated a 2 minute shutdown everynight, and during these two minutes, the database engine was shutdown, the mirror copy broken off and the database engine restarted. Next we would mount the disks with the copy of the database as it's own volume; you can create a filesystem, and import the data on the disks. Scribble this data off to tape. Finally, unmout this filesystem and add the disks back to the database volume, and grow the mirror. Great backup system and the data was always safe. This particular array was triple mirrored. The LVM also lets you control the way a mirror is written, either in parallel or serial. Windows only writes parallel (ie both copies at once), which means that if the write fails, both copies are corrupt. In the serial write scenario, one copy will be valid if the write fails, although the update will be slower. After I left AIX, they introduced JFS2 which has even more features than JFS. The only downside of AIX is the cost of the hardware and software, but like everything else in life top notch gear comes at a premium.
alonebfg Posted December 16, 2007 Posted December 16, 2007 ubuntu with isp config its got a lot of features most of which I never use but as a config tool for web servers its tops and very easy to use and setup
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now