migrating my server...

[Journer]

current:
p4 2.8e
1.5gb ram
15kscsi system drive
misc sata/pata drives equalling ~1tb
build in audio, Gb nic, etc...Abit IC7-MAXg
geforce2
currently running server 03 enterprise

what it does:
file server
web server
torrent/p2p box
cd/dvd burner
dvd ripper
ecodes ripped dvds to dvix

eventually:
email server
DNS server

ALSO, not that it really matters
i might be buidling a new game box so my old game machine would become new server
specs:
athlon 64 4000+
2gb ram
etc.

anywho....i'm thinking about migrating over to linux...havent decided on a distro...
the only problem i am running into is ALL of my drives are NTFS...it would be a bitch and a half to move crap over from one drive to the other, then formatting...converting to ext3, fat32, whatever...
on top of that i'm no linux expert...so i might run into troubles configuring crap...

all that said...should i make the move to linux?

 

[Rilex]

Soooooooooo.........how did you aquire Enterprise just to want to "toss it away", anyways? That is a ~$2500 license, ya know.

Anyways, doing your "eventuallies" under 2003 is pretty easy if you're just after a DNS caching server and SMTP/POP3 email (which is done via IIS). More or less a point-and-click affair.

However, with email, if you're on a residential network (e.g. Comcast, Shaw, etc.), expect to not be able to email anyone since the netblocks are generally in RBLs or blocked by the receiving mail server.

 

[stash]

However, with email, if you're on a residential network (e.g. Comcast, Shaw, etc.), expect to not be able to email anyone since the netblocks are generally in RBLs or blocked by the receiving mail server.

That's easy enough to work around by setting the ISPs SMTP server as a smarthost. I've been on Comcast for almost three years that way and never had any problems.

 

[coupland]

Originally posted by: Journer
anywho....i'm thinking about migrating over to linux...havent decided on a distro...
on top of that i'm no linux expert...so i might run into troubles configuring crap...
all that said...should i make the move to linux?

Well, as someone who's run Windows on his primary PC for years, and ran Linux on his primary PC for about 1.5 years, and generally enjoys experimenting I can say it depends on what you want to do. If you're new to Linux be prepared to not know how to do a lot of the things that are today second nature. I remember spending about two hours trying to figure out how to check my IP address under Linux when I first started because it's not the same as Windows, and yet it's so incredibly basic that no one writes a HOWTO for it.

Linux is great if you love the command line and love being in complete control of your PC, and love not having the GUI "hide" functionality from you. And yet, if you're new be prepared for your system to suffer from some minor bitrot as you climb the learning curve of installing software from source, or from binary, and finding that eventually some stuff doesn't work right and you aren't skilled enough to figure out why. And don't expect Linux to be magically "faster". A lot of the background daemons like Apache and Samba really are, but the realities of how X11 is structured means the GUI can be maddeningly slow at times.

If you're in for the long haul and wanna learn and like to be in control, and don't mind being a noob for a few months, Linux is lots of fun. If you're all about gaming and tweaking your rig, and just want stuff to work and not have to climb a steep learning curve, stick with Windows. Both are nice, it's up to you.

 

[Journer]

hehe...i got the license from my school...we have a kickass program for anyone in CS classes where you can get legit copies of nice software...although iw ill admit i had pirated it previously...oh well...

the email isnt a MAJOR concern...the biggest deal for me is getting file sharing to work on three platforms (mac, windows, linux) which is simple IMO...ive setup samba before, and as a matter of fact OSX runs samba client for windows filesharing anyways...
it seems like i would definitly see a performance increase...the only thing deterring me ATM is the hassle of moving about 1tb of files ....grrrrrr

i suppose the MAIN reason i want to do this...is because i'm tired of formatting and worrying about my server...honestly...if i can set it up as a linux box and not have to format it for another year or two, ill be very happy...it seems like every 6months my server needs to be formatted for one reason or another...probably do to stupid admin, but whatever...also...i'm trying to expand my abilities so that when i hit the job market i just have one more thing to put on my resume.

i think my currentl plan of action is to use an old box as a linux learning/test box...after a couple months of playing around...ill decide on the switch...

anywho, thanks for input

 

[Rilex]

Don't expect a perf. increase...in fact, for SMB, you're probably better of staying 2003. The only way Samba out performs Windows 2003 SMB is by not having Digital Signing (basically reducing security). You can turn DS off on 2003 if you need to.

If you're formatting because of "stupid admin", don't touch Linux. Stupid admin will turn into "bat-****** insane admin".

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Rilex
Don't expect a perf. increase...in fact, for SMB, you're probably better of staying 2003. The only way Samba out performs Windows 2003 SMB is by not having Digital Signing (basically reducing security). You can turn DS off on 2003 if you need to.

Sounds like Samba runs pretty nice to me. From: http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html

Tests by IT Week Labs indicate that the latest version of the open-source Samba file and print server software has widened the performance gap separating it from the commercial Windows alternative.

The latest benchmark results show an improvement over [Samba 2], which performed twice as fast as Windows 2000 Server when it was tested by IT Week Labs last year. Overall, it now performs 2.5 times faster than Windows Server 2003.

In terms of scalability, the gains of upgrading to Samba 3 are even more striking. Last year we found that Samba could handle four times as many clients as Windows 2000 before performance began to drop off. This year we would need to upgrade our test network in order to identify the point where Samba performance begins to fall in earnest.

 

[Rilex]

IIRC that was the test that was debunked because the defaults for 2003 are to enable Digital Signing which will slow down performance with the bonus of decreasing the potential for MitM attacks...It was not turned off on 2003 (as well as some other settings to downgrade 2003's SMB to Samba's capabilities). Samba does not support that feature.

 

[doornail]

Doesn't sound like a feature that would be missed in a home server.

 

[Journer]

hmmmm....to many damn decisions, lol...

 

[Brazen]

I run a linux file/web server at home. I use torrentflux as a web frontend to downloading torrents directly to my file server (downloading Fedora Core 6 torrent right now ). I use CentOS as the linux OS for my server (the same for servers at work), but I like Ubuntu on my laptop. Before Ubuntu I was diehard Fedora on the desktop and switched, but I'm going to play around with Fedora Core 6 AND Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft). For a server distro though, I'm pretty set on CentOS, but would maybe consider Debian Stable.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Journer
...it seems like every 6months my server needs to be formatted for one reason or another...probably do to stupid admin, but whatever...

System Administrators do NOT routinely re-format their Windows 2003 Servers.

If you are wanting to learn server administration, consider putting them into Virtual PC or Virtual Server windows (it's free). That way, if you mess up the OS, you can just erase the .VHD file and use your backup file. That's a lot easier than reformatting and re-installing a server.

 

[nweaver]

I have multiple linux boxes that haven't been formatted in years (and I'm not considering it)

I have the same for windows too though....


tbh, with proper control/security, a server should ONLY be nuked if it has a major hardware upgrade and/or is hacked (once it's owned, you can never be sure it truely belongs to you again)