Building a new server

[ncalipari]

guys are you serious?

Are you advising windows over linux for a server?

You complain about lack of flexibility of some windows versions.... linux has all the flexibility that you want!

Either you go with pricey hardware and pricey software... or you save a lot of money while having MANY more functionalities with linux...

I just tell you that if you were in my company and you would propose me a purchase request like this I would fire you, or at least put you where you can't make any (harmful) decision.

 

[jlazzaro]

guys are you serious?

Are you advising windows over linux for a server?

You complain about lack of flexibility of some windows versions.... linux has all the flexibility that you want!

Either you go with pricey hardware and pricey software... or you save a lot of money while having MANY more functionalities with linux...

windows vs linux in a business is more so a question of familiarity and supportability, not uber flexibility for things that arent even being used.

I just tell you that if you were in my company and you would propose me a purchase request like this I would fire you, or at least put you where you can't make any (harmful) decision.

fortunately, i dont think ANYONE has to worry about this.

 

[ncalipari]

windows vs linux in a business is more so a question of familiarity

I would rephrase this way:

windows vs linux for personal use is more so a question of familiarity.

Windows vs Linux in business is a question about cost, reliability, performance, scalability, ease of use, compatibility, .... Thus linux is the way to go.

Don't you see it? A guy is buying an i5 for a nas.... next what? an itanium to run the ERM software?

not uber flexibility for things that arent even being used.

Well in the thread people were complaining about lacks of features of a windows version vs the others... so maybe the correct way to think is: "maybe I don't need all this now, but it is nice to have it, and moreover the system is not more complex for the added functionalities, so...."

fortunately, i dont think ANYONE has to worry about this.

Guesses and reality sometimes divert

 

[COPOHawk]

guys are you serious?

Are you advising windows over linux for a server?

You complain about lack of flexibility of some windows versions.... linux has all the flexibility that you want!

Either you go with pricey hardware and pricey software... or you save a lot of money while having MANY more functionalities with linux...

I just tell you that if you were in my company and you would propose me a purchase request like this I would fire you, or at least put you where you can't make any (harmful) decision.

Yes...in fact...for a small business, SBS 2008 would be a great option. For the home front, it depends on what the budget is. I would ALWAYS go with SBS as opposed to regular Windows Server because of the wizards and built-in Exchange...for a similar price.

I am sure Linux is fine for cheaper price, but support/configuration can be an issue. Stability with SBS 2003 was good...and it is great with SBS 2008.


With your last comment...do you actually run anything? Or is this just spouting off? Just curious...

 

[ncalipari]

I am sure Linux is fine for cheaper price, but support/configuration can be an issue. Stability with SBS 2003 was good...and it is great with SBS 2008.

Stability, reliability and security are orders of magnitude better on linux.

Linux has a much wider HW support, and you can have better assistance with companies like RH or Novel. Plus free support is stellar confronted with windows.

With your last comment...do you actually run anything? Or is this just spouting off? Just curious...

Yes I have a small company. We design and develop embedded hardware (vending machines, POS, ...) and statistical software.

 

[COPOHawk]

Stability, reliability and security are orders of magnitude better on linux.

Linux has a much wider HW support, and you can have better assistance with companies like RH or Novel. Plus free support is stellar confronted with windows.


Yes I have a small company. We design and develop embedded hardware (vending machines, POS, ...) and statistical software.

I would agree with you for Enterprise environments. And the statistics show the large jump in Linux use for Web servers, etc.

It does depend on the environment though. Since this thread (OP) is in regards to a small environment, it depends on if the user wants to implement Linux and go through the learning curve.

As for small company, I own one myself...doing small business IT support. We support dozens of small businesses with Windows environments and about 12 SBS servers. In these settings, my customers are comfortable with Windows PCs and having SBS servers is a natural fit. The majority of my customers were Windows users before they were my customers.

I can tell you that if SBS wasn't stable, I wouldn't have about 80% of my current customer base

 

[ncalipari]

I can tell you that if SBS wasn't stable, I wouldn't have about 80% of my current customer base

Being stable is not an absolute quality. You are not stable. You are more or less stable than.

And windows is way less stable than Linux.


E.g.: Under windows I can write poor code that make the machine crash.

Under linux I cannot write poor code that make the machine crash. I have to write malicious code.

Windows has just a lot of inertia, and lack a marketing campaign like windows has.

If people were to study more carefully the situation, they would always go with linux for things like a NAS.

Learning curve is pretty gradual, there's a GUI for everything nowdays.

 

[COPOHawk]

1. Sorry...I won't concede that Linux is always the right choice, regardless of the circumstances. I am not a cheerleader, but I am smart enough use the right tool for the job. In small environments, that would be SBS.

2. Poor code is poor code. Viruses are viruses. Obviously, in your corner of the world...Linux works well. That doesn't apply universally.

3. The problem with Linux comes down to your statement "If people were to stufy more carefully the situation, they would always go with linux for things like a NAS". IF people want to invest the time and energy, then sure. FreeNAS is a decent alternative, but not without its own headaches, primarily configuration. Again, if cost is the issue, then go with the open source stuff first.

 

[Jimmah]

I will also jump on the Linux bandwagon and add a few cents to the discussion:

OP, I think you should aim for a decent motherboard with a whole pile of SATA ports, be it AMD or Intel based, hell even an Atom board with a PCI/PCI-E SATA card would be fine for such a small workload (plus it has the added effect of it's roles being upgraded to a degree). Add the pile 'o' HDD's you want, RAID/Ghost/Greyhole/Whatever to them, add however much RAM you like (no need to go crazy mind you, a NAS won't use or need 12gb). Add Linux (shameless plug for Amahi Server) and voila, saved yourself a whole bunch of cash with a good machine ready to go.

I am very much in love with my Amahi Server, it runs on an Atom D51S, has 4tb storage, runs peaked at 81w, 2gb RAM, Gig-E, silent, DHCP and DNS, easy peasy admin, fair amount of nice addons, loads of support, oh and it is FREE.

Lots of good advice in this thread, good luck with your decision.

 

[VirtualLarry]

And windows is way less stable than Linux.

E.g.: Under windows I can write poor code that make the machine crash.

Under linux I cannot write poor code that make the machine crash. I have to write malicious code.

Wait so you are really saying that either Windows or Linux, you can write code to crash the machine (I'm assuming user-mode code?). So what you are saying is that they are both unstable.

But then you add weasel-words like "poor" versus "malicious", to justify your position that Linux is superior. Even though you just established equivalency, if you read between your weasel-words like I just did.

I think that you just shot your own argument full of holes.

 

[mfenn]

guys are you serious?

Are you advising windows over linux for a server?

You complain about lack of flexibility of some windows versions.... linux has all the flexibility that you want!

Either you go with pricey hardware and pricey software... or you save a lot of money while having MANY more functionalities with linux...

I just tell you that if you were in my company and you would propose me a purchase request like this I would fire you, or at least put you where you can't make any (harmful) decision.

It's called using the right tool for the right job, something that most people who have been in the business for more than 5 minutes understand.

The OP has an existing Windows environment, so it makes sense to go with a Windows file server. If the OP was running a Linux shop, of course we wouldn't recommend a Windows solution.

 

[mfenn]

Under linux I cannot write poor code that make the machine crash. I have to write malicious code.

Wow, you've obviously never run a Linux system in a real production environment before.

// Initially written: 4/13/03 SEH
typedef struct ll {
   int data1;
   int data2;
   double data3;
   void * next;
} ll_t;

int i = 0;
ll_t *head = malloc(sizeof(ll_t));
ll_t *curr = head;
ll_t *new;

//* init list
for(i = 0; i == 99; i+=2){
   // Optimization: partially unroll loop, 7/12/05 JBK
   new = malloc(sizeof(ll_t));
   init_data(new);
   curr->next = new;
   curr = new;

   new = malloc(sizeof(ll_t));
   init_data(new);
   curr->next = new;
   curr = new;
}

Now, the above is obviously not great code, but it is certainly not malicious. However, this code play havoc on a Linux machine by allocating too much memory, and either causing the oom-killer to kill another process (probably something important) or by slowing the system to a crawl (probably so much so that SSH times while trying to log in.

So, in short, you're wrong.

And before you call me a M$ fanboy, let me tell you that I'm part of a team (of 2) that manages about 800 RHEL hosts, and I love the power and flexibility that Linux offers. Linux is the right tool for a lot of tasks but it is by no means the right tool for every task.

 

[ncalipari]

Now, the above is obviously not great code, but it is certainly not malicious. However, this code play havoc on a Linux machine by allocating too much memory, and either causing the oom-killer to kill another process (probably something important) or by slowing the system to a crawl (probably so much so that SSH times while trying to log in.

So, in short, you're wrong.

That's exactly the type of situation I had in mind.

With 100% memory and CPU usage linux stays stable. Windows doesn't. You just have to set the correct resources to each platform.

Let's make an example:

You have a database which handles the ambulance system of your city.

You write a function that each time that an emergency starts, it allocates an object representing the event. But when the emergency stops, the 8 bit pointer to the object is not unallocated.

How many calls do you need to crash your system under linux? Infinite.

How many calls do you need to crash your system under linux? (Ram+Swap)/8


That's a real scenario the city was london.


Anyhow I can make a lot of other examples based on the non-standard implementation of the TCP/IP stack or odds behavior of JVM. For example:

You have some java program which uses a variable named assert. It was written for Java 2.

Now you have Java 6 on your machine, and you try to run the program.

Which system do you think will crash? ;=)

 

[heymrdj]

That's exactly the type of situation I had in mind.

With 100% memory and CPU usage linux stays stable. Windows doesn't. You just have to set the correct resources to each platform.

Let's make an example:

You have a database which handles the ambulance system of your city.

You write a function that each time that an emergency starts, it allocates an object representing the event. But when the emergency stops, the 8 bit pointer to the object is not unallocated.

How many calls do you need to crash your system under linux? Infinite.

How many calls do you need to crash your system under linux? (Ram+Swap)/8


That's a real scenario the city was london.


Anyhow I can make a lot of other examples based on the non-standard implementation of the TCP/IP stack or odds behavior of JVM. For example:

You have some java program which uses a variable named assert. It was written for Java 2.

Now you have Java 6 on your machine, and you try to run the program.

Which system do you think will crash? ;=)

Are you *really* so foolish as to believe what you just typed .

Linux is far from infinite, it kills off processes that may be needed for the functioning of the system in order to run the "infection" that's climbing the stack. In a way linux is stupid. Windows 7 protects itself, I can load it down to kingdom come, but the computer keeps running because the OS itself stays on top of memory, ensure I can shut down rogue processes. Have you ever used a python/perl web program called torrentflux? It has a tendency to hang up python if a torrent is added wrong. This new process continues to draw ram endlessly, going higher and higher until ssh, apache, or any system process for that matter ceases to respond. You now have a box 1,000 miles away sitting critical with no means of remoting. We finally had to stop allowing it to put on systems that had neither remote power (hard cycle) or baseband IPKVM (onboard 3rd LAN control ports). On Windows system the program would simply hog upward until it either crashed or stalled no higher, allowing us to simply RDP in and kill it.

 

[ncalipari]

Are you *really* so foolish as to believe what you just typed .

Linux is far from infinite, it kills off processes that may be needed for the functioning of the system in order to run the "infection" that's climbing the stack. In a way linux is stupid. Windows 7 protects itself, I can load it down to kingdom come, but the computer keeps running because the OS itself stays on top of memory, ensure I can shut down rogue processes. Have you ever used a python/perl web program called torrentflux? It has a tendency to hang up python if a torrent is added wrong. This new process continues to draw ram endlessly, going higher and higher until ssh, apache, or any system process for that matter ceases to respond. You now have a box 1,000 miles away sitting critical with no means of remoting. We finally had to stop allowing it to put on systems that had neither remote power (hard cycle) or baseband IPKVM (onboard 3rd LAN control ports). On Windows system the program would simply hog upward until it either crashed or stalled no higher, allowing us to simply RDP in and kill it.

Solution for next time?

Limit resources available to the program

Set it by default on any program , maybe with SELinux or your preferred tool

Maybe windows 7 will handle this situation. Windows XP doesn't.

What if I have an XP machine which needs this feature? Most probably it means several hours of downtime, and a new license.


This is what I mean when I speak about flexibility, reliability, availability...

 

[COPOHawk]

This is interesting to hear the back and forth. I am only intimately familiar with Windows, not Linux.

Win 7 is pretty far away from XP. I won't lump all versions of Linux into the same pot either

ncalipari: Do you work with Windows at all in your company, including desktop OS? Or all you all Linux?

 

[heymrdj]

Solution for next time?

Limit resources available to the program

Set it by default on any program , maybe with SELinux or your preferred tool

Maybe windows 7 will handle this situation. Windows XP doesn't.

What if I have an XP machine which needs this feature? Most probably it means several hours of downtime, and a new license.


This is what I mean when I speak about flexibility, reliability, availability...

I shouldn't have to teach the OS how to protect itself from not functioning. Windows XP will protect itself to a limited extent. But no it's not good. Linux would require downtime same as any other. You can't test on a production system. You would have to lay out solutions and everything to get it done and take the system down to test it all out.

Windows is as flexible/reliable/available as linux is. Yes it costs a license, so does Red Hat. If you want support you have to pay for it, linux and windows are the same in this regard.

What linux packages can set up entire systems with email support ect with absolutely no configuration files to worry about? No need to have ultra intelligent sys admins being paid down the line just to maintain a system that's inflexible in terms of if it works.

 

[ncalipari]

1. Sorry...I won't concede that Linux is always the right choice, regardless of the circumstances. I am not a cheerleader, but I am smart enough use the right tool for the job. In small environments, that would be SBS.

Obviously linux is not the solution everywhere. I'm not saying that.

My rule of thumb is that you should never use more than 3-5% of your time on a machine for maintenance routines.

This is why I think that Linux Server/Windows machines is best suited for most environment.


Take the OP situation: He needs a NAS for several clients, used by the employees.

The clients most probably will be windows machines, as there is no need to teach linux to your assistant.

The server instead is best suited for linux for the several reasons I mentioned before.

For the final users, there will be no difference. They will use the backup either transparently as a synced folder, or like a dedicated partition as if it was an usb disk.

3. The problem with Linux comes down to your statement "If people were to stufy more carefully the situation, they would always go with linux for things like a NAS". IF people want to invest the time and energy, then sure. FreeNAS is a decent alternative, but not without its own headaches, primarily configuration. .

Today there's a GUI for everything.

The OP came here asking advices to build a machine himself.

If he knows enough to build a machine as a NAS, then he MUST know how to handle a GUI.

If he doesn't, then he should buy a ready-made solution.

But what IF he ABSOLUTELY needs a LARGE storage pool, with high reliability and availability, and he doesn't know a bit of linux and IT in general?

Then he should ask the help of a professional like me, or you.

Set the machine up for him and configure it. At the moment I sell an ARM version with 4 TB in raid 1 (total 8 TB) at 450 euros., and a x86 version with Raid 5 and 8 TB (total 12 TB) at 600 euros.

What if he needs help? What if he needs 24/7 assistance?

Obviously this will cost him a lot, but much less than what many might think.

I can offer 20 euro/hour premium assistance, 24/7, in Italian, German, French and English.

How could I do it, since I have less than 10 employees, and not a huge customer base?

Thanks to outsourcing

Trust me guys, you should ditch windows server, switch to linux and offer premium assistance. It's a win win situation:

- Your customer save money

- He gets enterprise-grade service, even if he has a very small company

- your company looks uber-professional

- Your revenue skyrocket

Again, if cost is the issue, then go with the open source stuff first

Speaking with businesses cost is never and always an issue.

Businesses needs to stay efficient, it's a natural law. Either you use your resources in the best possible way, or sooner or later someone will eat you. Even more with SOHO than with huge companies.

So the OP proposed a system that will cost him AT LEAST 1300 $ to build, while he could do the same thing with better functionalities and just 700$ (8 TB of RAID 5 or Z storage included)

Being a company and not an individual that can spend according to his whims, what would you choose?

 

[ncalipari]

The OP has an existing Windows environment, so it makes sense to go with a Windows file server. If the OP was running a Linux shop, of course we wouldn't recommend a Windows solution.

The fact is, there's no windows or linux shop.

There are businesses, and businesses needs to stay competitive. Or die.

Thus the optimal solution must be the choice whenever possible.

And I don't see a windows machine for a NAS as an optimal solution.


Does windows have at least software Raid?

 

[ncalipari]

I shouldn't have to teach the OS how to protect itself from not functioning.

And we shouldn't debug software, or even write it. Compilers should understand natural language, and imagine what the user means when he write a typo.

That's computer scientist's nirvana. Unfortunately we live in RL

Anyhow better have the chance and not use it (which anyhow takes no more than 30 minutes to be set up) than having the road barred by design.

Windows XP will protect itself to a limited extent. But no it's not good. Linux would require downtime same as any other.

Linux would not require the same downtime. In a well designed environment no downtime would be required, thanks to virtualization or less sophisticated techniques.

You can't test on a production system. You would have to lay out solutions and everything to get it done and take the system down to test it all out.

Yes you can, thanks to system image cloning.

Something you can't do in windows without paying big licensing fees.

Windows is as flexible/reliable/available as linux is.

Stating this means either that:

a) You are not fully aware of linux capabilities

b) This sentence come from a biased opinion

c) This sentence is a bit over the line, what you meant really is: In everyday use, It is difficult to discern windows reliability from linux reliability. Availability instead is a dead argument for windows.

This is not a matter of discussion. It is a objective argument.

Statistics tell us how much linux is better than windows, under the server point of view.

Yes it costs a license, so does Red Hat. If you want support you have to pay for it, linux and windows are the same in this regard.

a) You can have RH for free. It's called CentOS

b) Buying a windows license doesn't automatically means that you get support.

c) Paid support for windows is much more expensive than linux support (one order of magnitude on very large volumes)

What linux packages can set up entire systems with email support ect with absolutely no configuration files to worry about? No need to have ultra intelligent sys admins being paid down the line just to maintain a system that's inflexible in terms of if it works.

Ubuntu.

 

[ncalipari]

This is interesting to hear the back and forth. I am only intimately familiar with Windows, not Linux.

Win 7 is pretty far away from XP. I won't lump all versions of Linux into the same pot either

ncalipari: Do you work with Windows at all in your company, including desktop OS? Or all you all Linux?

Well my machines (home and office) have all linux.

But we have windows and 2 mac os machines. Plus we work with windows and mac os on customer request, but we always advice linux to our customers, even for desktop.

 

[promposive]

Here is a list for your consideration:

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=11610389
12TB (6x2TB) hitachi 7200rpm drives
2U Rack mount case with 8x Hot swap (2 spare bays)
RocketRAID card
cd/dvd burner (could just use a usb drive, but sometimes having it is useful especially if not very technical users are to use it)
i5 2500 (non K edition saves a few bucks, are you planning to overclock? if not dont really need K)
2x4gb 8GB ram with 2 open slots, ram is cheap, good to have extra in case additional roles are added
Antec 620W 80+ certified PSU w/ 5 star reviews
Random Asrock mobo w/ H67 onboard graphics (not sure about quality of this board though)

Price comes in around $1,650
Edit: Added up your prices wrong

Other considerations: spare 2TB drive for when one goes bad you can swap it out while RMA'ing the old, make sure server is on an UPS, make sure gigabit connection between computers and server, maybe add dual gigabit card to server and team if multiple backups going on at same time, etc...

And for the OS debate...
Personally, I would say Server 2008 R2... especially if roles, webserver/exchange/AD or something could be added in the future. Maybe look into a MSDN or technet subscription to save money on licensing (if it fits your use)...

 

[heymrdj]

And we shouldn't debug software, or even write it. Compilers should understand natural language, and imagine what the user means when he write a typo.

That's computer scientist's nirvana. Unfortunately we live in RL

Anyhow better have the chance and not use it (which anyhow takes no more than 30 minutes to be set up) than having the road barred by design.



Linux would not require the same downtime. In a well designed environment no downtime would be required, thanks to virtualization or less sophisticated techniques.



Yes you can, thanks to system image cloning.

Something you can't do in windows without paying big licensing fees.






Stating this means either that:

a) You are not fully aware of linux capabilities

b) This sentence come from a biased opinion

c) This sentence is a bit over the line, what you meant really is: In everyday use, It is difficult to discern windows reliability from linux reliability. Availability instead is a dead argument for windows.

This is not a matter of discussion. It is a objective argument.

Statistics tell us how much linux is better than windows, under the server point of view.



a) You can have RH for free. It's called CentOS

b) Buying a windows license doesn't automatically means that you get support.

c) Paid support for windows is much more expensive than linux support (one order of magnitude on very large volumes)



Ubuntu.

Where can I download this Ubuntu SBS? I've never heard of it. Does it use egroupware? Zimbra? Is it the free versions or paid versions of it? It's one click to start the entire process right, a few questions and it sets itself up with no other work needed? Windows clients will interface with it automatically?

I have reviewed both outsourced windows and linux contracts and there's hardly a difference in them. As for using a free server based CentOS setup (I personally use it, along with Debian, FreeNAS, and OpenFiler) it works great to me, but not to share holders. Share holders want corporate accountability to fix things, not a forum board or bug tracker that says we'll have a coder look at the problem when someone free decides to dedicate their free time to it.

As for my statement, no it's pretty much black and white. I have a win2k3 server that hasn't been rebooted for over 700 days. AD/DNS/DHCP/file storage box on a P4. Another Windows 2000 Server that hasn't been rebooted in 492 days, runs a game server in the Interserver Datacenter. Finally my newest Win2k8 R2 box hasn't rebooted since christmas. Though it is time for some updates so I'll need to reboot it. Then again I have to reboot my Debian server once it gets its new kernel update. Par for the course.

As for nirvana, nirvana must be here because it works. I don't have to protect the OS from itself. This should be basic, predesigned in any server grade OS.

 

[ncalipari]

Where can I download this Ubuntu SBS?

http://www.ubuntu.com/

. Does it use egroupware? Zimbra?

Both are software that are opensource and thus are freely available for linux.

Is it the free versions or paid versions of it?

free

It's one click to start the entire process right, a few questions and it sets itself up with no other work needed?

Everytime I install ubuntu on a new machine I wonder how people can stand that painful process called windows installation.

Much faster, more friendly and powerful. And at the end you get a real working system, not a mockup where you gotta spend another 90 minutes to basic operativity

Windows clients will interface with it automatically?

Interface what? how? with which protocol?

Magical interface to the astral port?

I have reviewed both outsourced windows and linux contracts and there's hardly a difference in them.

Maybe you skipped that thing called EULA.

As for using a free server based CentOS setup (I personally use it, along with Debian, FreeNAS, and OpenFiler) it works great to me, but not to share holders. Share holders want corporate accountability to fix things, not a forum board or bug tracker that says we'll have a coder look at the problem when someone free decides to dedicate their free time to it.

If you want accountability you go RH, novell, or Ubuntu support.

Otherwise you have CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, ....

As for my statement, no it's pretty much black and white. I have a win2k3 server that hasn't been rebooted for over 700 days. AD/DNS/DHCP/file storage box on a P4. Another Windows 2000 Server that hasn't been rebooted in 492 days, runs a game server in the Interserver Datacenter. Finally my newest Win2k8 R2 box hasn't rebooted since christmas. Though it is time for some updates so I'll need to reboot it.

What do you want to show with this?

Then again I have to reboot my Debian server once it gets its new kernel update.

Are you comparing an upgrade in features with bugs update?

Par for the course.

Oh ok, now I got it. Are you trying to tell me that a sample of 4 machines is statistically significative?

No offence, but that's hilarious.

As for nirvana, nirvana must be here because it works. I don't have to protect the OS from itself. This should be basic, predesigned in any server grade OS.

Then skip windows alltogether.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

 

[Jeff7181]

Where can I download this Ubuntu SBS? I've never heard of it. Does it use egroupware? Zimbra? Is it the free versions or paid versions of it? It's one click to start the entire process right, a few questions and it sets itself up with no other work needed? Windows clients will interface with it automatically?

I have reviewed both outsourced windows and linux contracts and there's hardly a difference in them. As for using a free server based CentOS setup (I personally use it, along with Debian, FreeNAS, and OpenFiler) it works great to me, but not to share holders. Share holders want corporate accountability to fix things, not a forum board or bug tracker that says we'll have a coder look at the problem when someone free decides to dedicate their free time to it.

As for my statement, no it's pretty much black and white. I have a win2k3 server that hasn't been rebooted for over 700 days. AD/DNS/DHCP/file storage box on a P4. Another Windows 2000 Server that hasn't been rebooted in 492 days, runs a game server in the Interserver Datacenter. Finally my newest Win2k8 R2 box hasn't rebooted since christmas. Though it is time for some updates so I'll need to reboot it. Then again I have to reboot my Debian server once it gets its new kernel update. Par for the course.

As for nirvana, nirvana must be here because it works. I don't have to protect the OS from itself. This should be basic, predesigned in any server grade OS.

Somebody isn't patching... tisk tisk...