Linux Server advice

I am going to be building a Server, soon, most likely a Dell since there will be cloned versions of this server hopefully so disk images will save on development time for me,

but my questions are as follows


IF choosing a Linux OS. which would be best for a Server.
Server requirements
Apache, mySQL, PHP5, VPN, ( ideally easy connect with the Native Windows XP VPN )

How long would it take YOU to set up a Server with the above listed, on your OS of choice?

I ask how long it would take you, seeing as I plan to become proficient in the OS that is chosen to I can better admin the server. my skills will improve to the point of an experienced person I am sure. not the noob I currently am, having playing mainly with Mandrake Pre 9.0 and Yoper.


Opinions on RedHat, & Fedora Core 3 would also be appreciated.

thanks for your opinions

Hmm... there's several ways I'd go about doing this.

For quickest build, I would probably go Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, or perhaps RedHat Enterprise Linux. You can just choose to install those packages, and it'll just do it. The advantage (what you pay the money for) is that all the updates are well tested, and well supported.. this is great for servers.

On the cheap, you could do the same thing with a number of different systems, I would probably go for FreeBSD or Gentoo, but that's just a preference for their package systems.

If I was just fooling around, I could have a server built and completely configured in about 2-3 hours (depending on package system, more if it's Gentoo). If I was being extra particular (if, say, it was going into production) it'd take me about an extra hour to do extra checks and preparations. Of course, I've had server builds span days if hardware gives me issues.

Rather than just cloning disks, I'd suggest building install scripts.. with some distributions this is easy, with others, I just home-roll a bash script. The advantage to doing it this way is that you don't have to mess around with regenerating all of your SSL certs (SSH, Apache mod_ssl, etc).

If I plan to build several servers, I'll pick a fairly default install (usually without X), and after the install is complete, write a bash script containing all of the commands that I'd run... commands to update the package system, install the applications, copy configurations into place, etc. This usually takes an additional hour or so, at the end of it, you can hand this to a newbie tech, and tell them, "put in the first CD, click typical install, then once it's booted, check this out of CVS (or floppy it in) and run the script to do all the work.

You can then throw around words like "baremetal recovery".. install the OS, run the script, pop in the tape, and restore the data, all within about an hour and a half, and can be done by a windows tech reading disaster recovery docs. If you are smart and on the ball, you will also create a process for configuration changes to the machines... any and all config changes go into CVS, where they can be recovered or rolled back to a certain date if needed.

And I'm rambling now, so I hope you got an answer out of that

I definitely wouldn't recommend red hat/fedora for that. If it were me, I'd probably use gentoo, as I'm most familiar with it. However, for someone without any advance knowledge of one distro or another, I'd suggest debian. Debian is the most stable and secure linux distro out there, and it has an excellent package manager making it very easy to install new software on an ongoing basis. Red hat/fedora/suse use rpm, which is very difficult to use and quite frustrating. As a comparison, it took me 3 days of active tinkering with my red hat system to get a dvd player working while it took me one command in gentoo or debian.

The only argument I could see supporting red hat/suse (but not fedora) is that you can purchase very good service contracts, which are not available generally for the free linux distros.

Server Will be Production,
Security and Data privacy is a HUGE issue,



I'll move debian up to the top of Distro's to look at and focus on, Gentoo is pretty hard to master I seem to notice from my lurking in this section



EDIT:

this link is making me think Debian even more
http://www.tomvergote.be/writings/Linux/Debian-Gentoo-production-environment.html

I only use gentoo as a server distro because it's 1) a home server that holds my media files, not something very important and 2) I know it really well.

Gentoo, while it is my favorite distro, is not ideal for servers in a production environment.

Debian is really the clear choice for a production server where stability and security are paramount. The other possibility I would look at is bsd, but that's not actually linux. Openbsd is unbelievably secure.

Debian has a very long release cycle, and software is EXTREMELY well tested before being released into the debian "Stable" repositories. You can be sure it is REALLY stable when it is released. Also, debian backports patches. Say you install samba 3.0.41 (no idea if that's an actual version) and later a security hole is found in it. Debian will release security patches for all the old versions of samba so that you only need to make minor mods to your system to fix the hole. Gentoo, and most other distros, will release a new version of samba, say 3.1, which has the patch and tell you to upgrade to it. This is not as good an option for production servers where reliability is key and everything must be tested before being rolled out.

EDIT: I just read that link you posted, and I agree with it 100% (except the part where he says he's fond of red hat- bleh). It accurately describes the pros and cons of both debian and gentoo.

deRusett said:

I am going to be building a Server, soon, most likely a Dell since there will be cloned versions of this server hopefully so disk images will save on development time for me,

but my questions are as follows


IF choosing a Linux OS. which would be best for a Server.
Server requirements
Apache, mySQL, PHP5, VPN, ( ideally easy connect with the Native Windows XP VPN )

Click to expand...

Debian if you want linux, FreeBSD if you just want *nix.

How long would it take YOU to set up a Server with the above listed, on your OS of choice?

Click to expand...

I haven't installed debian in years, or setup vpn, but except for the vpn, probably a couple hours. A while longer for FreeBSD.

I ask how long it would take you, seeing as I plan to become proficient in the OS that is chosen to I can better admin the server. my skills will improve to the point of an experienced person I am sure. not the noob I currently am, having playing mainly with Mandrake Pre 9.0 and Yoper.


Opinions on RedHat, & Fedora Core 3 would also be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Ick. I dislike Redhat and it's spawn Fedora Core.

thanks for your opinions

Click to expand...

You are very welcome.

Not a whole lot of people seem to like RedHat. It's OK, I loathe it sometimes too, but I have to deal with it in a production environment.

Although it can be a PITA to install stuff, I havn't actually needed to install anything on any of our production boxes, just keep them up to date. One really nifty thing that RedHat does, that I know of no other distribution doing, is when you pick a distribution of RedHat, say, AS 2.1, and install stuff, say, Squid 2.4. From then on, you can count on nothing ever changing. You can put all the custom scripts and whatever else in, and nothing will ever change. The reason for this is that instead of upgrading you to the newest and best version of installed programs, they will maintain the current version, and backport security fixes, bug fixes and sometimes additional features. They are the only distro that I know of that does this. It means that literally nothing changes. We still have some RedHat 7.3 and 9 boxes kicking around, and they're up to date as far as security patching goes.

As a quick comparison, with Gentoo, to fix a security issue you will have to upgrade to the latest, non-backwards compatible version of Squid (2.5), which completely changes it's authentication methods. This may seem innocent, but it means having to rewrite all of the authentication scripts that were previously built for it, and redesign the authentication methods.

Personally, I use Debian for desktops, Gentoo for personal servers, and a mix of SuSE, RedHat, and FreeBSD for production at work.

One really nifty thing that RedHat does, that I know of no other distribution doing, is when you pick a distribution of RedHat, say, AS 2.1, and install stuff, say, Squid 2.4. From then on, you can count on nothing ever changing. You can put all the custom scripts and whatever else in, and nothing will ever change. The reason for this is that instead of upgrading you to the newest and best version of installed programs, they will maintain the current version, and backport security fixes, bug fixes and sometimes additional features. They are the only distro that I know of that does this. It means that literally nothing changes. We still have some RedHat 7.3 and 9 boxes kicking around, and they're up to date as far as security patching goes.

Click to expand...

Debian does this as well. Most distros do not. As you mention, gentoo requires you to just upgrade to a newer version of the package. This is one of the main reasons I'd choose debian over gentoo for a production server.

IMO, Red Hat has one advantage, and it can be a substantial one. Red Hat is a commercial company, so you can purchase a very comprehensive support package that is backed by a major corporation with 24/7 dedicated support. This is expensive, but if you want someone you can count on to fix your particular idiosyncratic problems on the phone with you at 3:30 am, red hat is the way to go. Suse may offer this too, I'm not sure. I bet it does. The free distros just don't work that way though. That being said, Fedora has absolutely no reason for existence. =p Except maybe for people that use red hat at work and get used to it.

Personally, I use Debian for desktops, Gentoo for personal servers, and a mix of SuSE, RedHat, and FreeBSD for production at work.

Click to expand...

This is unusual. Most do the opposite... gentoo for desktops, debian for servers, as mentioned in the above link.

Personally, I use gentoo for most stuff, cause I just know it best. I do use debian on my laptop though. That is because it is a P133 and is VERY slow and would take forever to compile stuff. Also, it has a 2.1 GB hard drive, and you can't install gentoo on that, although you can install debian. (I've tried, and failed... you just run out of space with gentoo. I suppose that's because gentoo requires all kinds of development stuff.)

As a quick comparison, with Gentoo, to fix a security issue you will have to upgrade to the latest, non-backwards compatible version of Squid (2.5), which completely changes it's authentication methods.

Click to expand...

And exactly this is why Gentoo never was a server and never will be. It's a fine "enthusiast" distro but nothing for server usage.

Under Linux you realistically have only 3 choices:

Debian: free, very stable but no support contracts (but available frm shops like progeny)
Redhat/Suse EL: not free, priced per seat licensing but support contracts
CentOS: free, 1:1 RHEL-clone, no direct support contracts.

Imho from stability and quality Debian is equal (if not better) than RH/Suse, but it's not certified and managers might be squeamish at that and the no support thing. And of course especially RH is "the standard" in enterprise Linux computing.

All others like Fedora, Gentoo, OpenSuse, mdk, slack, etc have either crazy release cycles every 6 months, have too small support lengths, are not stable enough for server usage, are a desktop distro or have several of those shortcomings at the same time.
So if you want it cheap, I'd say debian, if you want it certified and all bureaucratic t's crossed, RHEL.


PS: pretty much any Linux can do PPTP (the VPN method used in XP) so software wise any distro you chose can interact with a XP VPN client/server

MRD said:

Suse may offer this too, I'm not sure. I bet it does.

Click to expand...

It sure does. The company I work for is a Novell solutions partner, so Novell sends out guys like me to support companies that are having issues, or need extra help. There's phone support as well, the basic phone support will get you in touch with a Novell engineer, with a full test lab.

This is unusual. Most do the opposite... gentoo for desktops, debian for servers, as mentioned in the above link.

Personally, I use gentoo for most stuff, cause I just know it best. I do use debian on my laptop though. That is because it is a P133 and is VERY slow and would take forever to compile stuff. Also, it has a 2.1 GB hard drive, and you can't install gentoo on that, although you can install debian. (I've tried, and failed... you just run out of space with gentoo. I suppose that's because gentoo requires all kinds of development stuff.)

Click to expand...

I don't find it unusual. My servers run gentoo because it allows me to finely tune it, and gives additional performace due to the custom compiling. I like trying out new services, so not being stuck in an old version is something that I like. I use debian-based desktops because of the ease of application installation... Gentoo would drive me nuts with all the compiling and troubleshooting for the installation of a simple application.

Well, it's against conventional wisdom, but if it works for you, great! I personally use gentoo on my server as well, mostly just because I like gentoo.