Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.setup > #374 > unrolled thread

Setting up a linux server.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.setup

Contents

  Setting up a linux server. Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> - 2011-05-18 22:09 +0000
    Re: Setting up a linux server. Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-05-18 16:01 -0700
    Re: Setting up a linux server. "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2011-05-18 19:09 -0400
    Re: Setting up a linux server. Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> - 2011-05-19 01:16 +0200
      Re: Setting up a linux server. David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-05-19 09:35 +0200
        Re: Setting up a linux server. Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> - 2011-05-19 16:25 +0200
          Re: Setting up a linux server. Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> - 2011-05-20 04:40 +0000
            Re: Setting up a linux server. "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2011-05-20 03:11 -0400
              Re: Setting up a linux server. David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-05-20 11:41 +0200
                Re: Setting up a linux server. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-23 17:25 -0500
            Re: Setting up a linux server. David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-05-20 11:40 +0200
              Re: Setting up a linux server. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-20 10:41 +0100
                Re: Setting up a linux server. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-23 17:28 -0500
                  Re: Setting up a linux server. TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:15 +0200
      Re: Setting up a linux server. Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> - 2011-05-20 04:44 +0000
        Re: Setting up a linux server. Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> - 2011-05-20 07:35 +0200
          Re: Setting up a linux server. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-20 07:29 +0100
        Re: Setting up a linux server. "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-20 05:30 -0500
          Re: Setting up a linux server. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-20 11:43 +0100
            Re: Setting up a linux server. "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-20 06:18 -0500
              Re: Setting up a linux server. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-20 12:43 +0100
    Re: Setting up a linux server. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-19 00:39 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#374 — Setting up a linux server.

I need|want to set up a small file server on my home network.

The three things I want to do with it are:
 - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed 
by any work station.

- Spool a network printer. I already have a networked printer,
but it is using some real ancient hardware.

- email: I use Thunderbird for e-mail. I would want to 
store T-bird's configuration files and e-mail folders
on the server so that any user can find their e-mail
regardless of which workstation they log in on.

Other uses may come up later.

I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
for this.  These aern't the fastest machines around
anymore, but may be usable with a trim version
of Linux.  

So what do you think?  Doable?  What Linux distro would
you reccomend.  BTW: I'm a relitive Linux newbie. But,
a fairly well advanced computer user.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#375

On 2011-05-18, Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
> The three things I want to do with it are:
>  - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed 
> by any work station.

If you have Windows and/or OS X clients, you can use samba, included
with most distros.

> - Spool a network printer. I already have a networked printer,
> but it is using some real ancient hardware.

CUPS should work fine for this purpose (even though I hate it), which
is also included with most distros.

> - email: I use Thunderbird for e-mail. I would want to 
> store T-bird's configuration files and e-mail folders
> on the server so that any user can find their e-mail
> regardless of which workstation they log in on.

Simply put your users' configuration on the network share and point
Thunderbird to it.

> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
> for this.  These aern't the fastest machines around
> anymore, but may be usable with a trim version
> of Linux.  
>
> So what do you think?  Doable?  What Linux distro would
> you reccomend.

I always recommend that you should use the same distro that the person/
people you hope to ask for advice the most uses.  They are all similar
enough that it's pointless to say one is ''better'' than another for
a given purpose.

--keith



-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376

On Wed, 18 May 2011 18:09:58 -0400, Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

> I need|want to set up a small file server on my home network.

> So what do you think?  Doable?  What Linux distro would
> you reccomend.  BTW: I'm a relitive Linux newbie. But,
> a fairly well advanced computer user.

If you know someone who knows linux well, use whatever distribution
they use.  Any distro should work for what you've described,
provided the hardware (in particular the printer) is supported by
linux.

For a quick test of the hardware, and for a quick intro to linux,
I'd start with a live cd/dvd, such as Knoppix.  It'll run a lot
slower from a cd/dvd, but it makes it easy to quickly see if the
hardware works.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377

On Thursday 19 May 2011 00:09 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
identifying as Gordon wrote...

> I need|want to set up a small file server on my home network.
> 
> The three things I want to do with it are:
>  - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
> by any work station.

That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)

> - Spool a network printer. I already have a networked printer,
> but it is using some real ancient hardware.

CUPS should be able to handle that pretty well. ;-)

> - email: I use Thunderbird for e-mail. I would want to
> store T-bird's configuration files and e-mail folders
> on the server so that any user can find their e-mail
> regardless of which workstation they log in on.

Hmm...  There are two ways I see for going about this...

     1) Set up a local IMAP4 server with Courier or Exim or
        something; or

     2) Create user accounts on the server and install 
        Thunderbird on it.  Then use X11 forwarding, so that
        whenever someone logs in on the workstation and fires
        up Thunderbird, the Thunderbird session is running
        remotely (and using the configuration files and mail
        dirs on the server) while being displayed on the local
        workstation's screen.

> Other uses may come up later.
> 
> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
> for this.

Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.

If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)

> These aern't the fastest machines around anymore, but may be usable
> with a trim version of Linux.
> 
> So what do you think?  Doable?  What Linux distro would
> you reccomend.  BTW: I'm a relitive Linux newbie. But,
> a fairly well advanced computer user.

Well, it's not clear - at least, to me - whether your retired machines
will be used as workstations or whether you seek to use one of them as
a server.

You mention "1 Gig", but that's not really saying much - see above - and
processor speed is one thing, but amount of available RAM and diskspace
is another.  So it's kind of hard to recommend a particular
distribution to you.  

I can only give you some vague and generic recommendations, especially
since you mention relative newbie status, and that is CentOS or Debian
Stable for the server, and possibly - depending on speed and RAM - any
lightweight distribution for the workstations.  If you're going to be
using them as true thin clients, then there are special images you can
download, because a true thin client only needs to connect to the
network and the server, and display images on the screen, so to speak. 
So it doesn't need a whole lot - it doesn't even need a hard disk, as
it can boot off of a floppy or a CD, or even PXE boot if the BIOS and
the NIC support that.

Hope this was useful... ;-)

-- 
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382

On 19/05/2011 01:16, Aragorn wrote:
> On Thursday 19 May 2011 00:09 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
> identifying as Gordon wrote...
>
>> I need|want to set up a small file server on my home network.
>>
>> The three things I want to do with it are:
>>   - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
>> by any work station.
>
> That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)
>

As others have said, that's what /samba/ is for.  You can put the files 
in a directory under /src if you want.

>> - Spool a network printer. I already have a networked printer,
>> but it is using some real ancient hardware.
>
> CUPS should be able to handle that pretty well. ;-)
>
>> - email: I use Thunderbird for e-mail. I would want to
>> store T-bird's configuration files and e-mail folders
>> on the server so that any user can find their e-mail
>> regardless of which workstation they log in on.
>
> Hmm...  There are two ways I see for going about this...
>
>       1) Set up a local IMAP4 server with Courier or Exim or
>          something; or
>

Courier is an IMAP server, and is serious overkill unless you are 
familiar with it, or are looking to serve many thousands of users.

Exim is an MTA, not a mail server.


However, the idea of using an IMAP server is the right one.  Once you 
have started using IMAP for your email, you will never go back to the 
dark ages of POP3 - you'll find it hard to conceive why anyone would use 
anything else.

What you want here is Dovecot.  Without question, it is the easiest imap 
server to configure and work with, and it is also typically the fastest 
and most efficient (especially with maildir).  All distros will have it, 
and include a basic configuration.  When you have only a few home users, 
you can set up authentication (usernames and passwords) in a simple text 
file to make it even easier.

For outgoing mail, users can either send directly to their ISP, or you 
can configure an MTA on the server.  The two most common are Exim and 
Postfix - use whatever your distro has as default, and you will have a 
minimum of configuration.  You can collect mail from external POP3 boxes 
using a fetchmail script that delivers to the IMAP directories.


It might sound like setting up a mail server is a lot more effort than 
using POP3 and storing email locally on a workstation.  It is certainly 
a bit more effort, especially if the concepts are new to you, but it's 
not /that/ hard - and the Dovecot website has a lot of useful help. 
There are also a fair number of how-tos on the web.  And if it doesn't 
work, what have you lost but a bit of your time?  But once it is up and 
running, then all your email is stored on the server - not the 
workstations.  Email clients then get a view of that email, but it's the 
server that is the primary storage.  So you can have a client set up on 
each workstation, or even multiple clients (maybe you want to try KMail 
or Evolution as well as Thunderbird).  If you set up your firewall 
appropriately, you can also access it from outside or from a smart 
mobile phone.



>       2) Create user accounts on the server and install
>          Thunderbird on it.  Then use X11 forwarding, so that
>          whenever someone logs in on the workstation and fires
>          up Thunderbird, the Thunderbird session is running
>          remotely (and using the configuration files and mail
>          dirs on the server) while being displayed on the local
>          workstation's screen.
>

Don't use X forwarding here.  Sometimes X forwarding is a useful trick, 
but it is slow and awkward compared to running things locally - it's 
heyday is long since passed.


>> Other uses may come up later.
>>
>> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
>> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
>> for this.
>
> Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
> workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.
>

1 GB ram is loads for a server like this.  It's always nice with more 
ram, and it will make some things faster, but I wouldn't have worried if 
he had said 512 MB on the server.  I have a file server at the office 
here with a 90 MHz processor and 64 MB ram, though I wouldn't like to 
run a mail server or printer server on it.

> If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
> essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
> exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)
>
>> These aern't the fastest machines around anymore, but may be usable
>> with a trim version of Linux.
>>
>> So what do you think?  Doable?  What Linux distro would
>> you reccomend.  BTW: I'm a relitive Linux newbie. But,
>> a fairly well advanced computer user.
>
> Well, it's not clear - at least, to me - whether your retired machines
> will be used as workstations or whether you seek to use one of them as
> a server.
>
> You mention "1 Gig", but that's not really saying much - see above - and
> processor speed is one thing, but amount of available RAM and diskspace
> is another.  So it's kind of hard to recommend a particular
> distribution to you.
>
> I can only give you some vague and generic recommendations, especially
> since you mention relative newbie status, and that is CentOS or Debian
> Stable for the server, and possibly - depending on speed and RAM - any
> lightweight distribution for the workstations.  If you're going to be
> using them as true thin clients, then there are special images you can
> download, because a true thin client only needs to connect to the
> network and the server, and display images on the screen, so to speak.
> So it doesn't need a whole lot - it doesn't even need a hard disk, as
> it can boot off of a floppy or a CD, or even PXE boot if the BIOS and
> the NIC support that.
>
> Hope this was useful... ;-)
>

I am also a fan of Debian for servers.  CentOS is a good choice if you 
want "industry standard" software but don't want paid commercial support 
(i.e., Red Hat RHEL) - however, that's typically not an issue for a home 
user.

I would recommend that you first burn a few live CDs and get the feel of 
what you want to use on the workstations - then you can get a related 
server distribution.  Pretty much all server distributions will work 
fine for you, so it makes sense to pick something that minimises your 
learning curves.  If you like the look of Ubuntu on the desktop, get 
Ubuntu Server on the server.  If you prefer Mint Debian, go for Debian 
on the server.

For the workstations, you need to have a look at Ubuntu.  I've gone off 
it myself, but it is very popular and worth checking out.  I would 
recommend Linux Mint Debian for workstations, or Linux Mint Xfce (which 
is also Debian-based) for weaker workstations.  They give you everything 
you need, pretty much out of the box.

Don't forget when testing that live CDs are a lot slower than real 
installations.  If possible, use a live USB stick instead of the CD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383

On Thursday 19 May 2011 09:35 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
identifying as David Brown wrote...

> On 19/05/2011 01:16, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 19 May 2011 00:09 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
>> identifying as Gordon wrote...
>>
>>> I need|want to set up a small file server on my home network.
>>>
>>> The three things I want to do with it are:
>>>   - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
>>> by any work station.
>>
>> That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)
> 
> As others have said, that's what /samba/ is for.  You can put the
> files in a directory under /src if you want.

Well, he was asking about providing a *place* so I took that literally. 
And Samba is only needed if some of the workstations run Windows.  If
the clients run GNU/Linux, he would be better off with NFS.

>>> - email: I use Thunderbird for e-mail. I would want to
>>> store T-bird's configuration files and e-mail folders
>>> on the server so that any user can find their e-mail
>>> regardless of which workstation they log in on.
>>
>> Hmm...  There are two ways I see for going about this...
>>
>>       1) Set up a local IMAP4 server with Courier or Exim or
>>          something; or
> 
> Courier is an IMAP server, and is serious overkill unless you are
> familiar with it, or are looking to serve many thousands of users.
> 
> Exim is an MTA, not a mail server.
> [...]
> What you want here is Dovecot.

I meant Dovecot, yes, but somehow I wrote Exim. ;-)

-- 
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386

Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:ir3989$6eq$4@dont-
email.me:

>>>> The three things I want to do with it are:
>>>>   - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
>>>> by any work station.
>>>
>>> That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)
>> 
>> As others have said, that's what /samba/ is for.  You can put the
>> files in a directory under /src if you want.
> 
> Well, he was asking about providing a *place* so I took that literally. 
> And Samba is only needed if some of the workstations run Windows.  If
> the clients run GNU/Linux, he would be better off with NFS.

I should be a bit more specific.  The workstations are running Win XP.
I'll be adding another workstation latter this year and I'll be the 
primary user of that machine.  When that happens, I will seriously
consider making that one a linux box.  The server is a different
project.  I want it to provide network storage to the Win boxes
via the Map Network Drive function.  Sounds like a job for Samba.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390

On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:40:39 -0400, Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

> I should be a bit more specific.  The workstations are running Win XP.

When you get stuck with the task of adding a windows 7 system to the
lan, see http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Windows7 for the registry
entries that will have to be added, to allow w7 to see the samba or the
xp workgroup.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392

On 20/05/2011 09:11, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:40:39 -0400, Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>> I should be a bit more specific. The workstations are running Win XP.
>
> When you get stuck with the task of adding a windows 7 system to the
> lan, see http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Windows7 for the registry
> entries that will have to be added, to allow w7 to see the samba or the
> xp workgroup.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>

You only need to fiddle with these if you are working with a domain - 
just use a simple workgroup and there is no problem accessing your samba 
server from any windows machine (> Win95).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400

On 2011-05-20, David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2011 09:11, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:40:39 -0400, Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I should be a bit more specific. The workstations are running Win XP.
>>
>> When you get stuck with the task of adding a windows 7 system to the
>> lan, see http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Windows7 for the registry
>> entries that will have to be added, to allow w7 to see the samba or the
>> xp workgroup.
>>
>> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>>
>
> You only need to fiddle with these if you are working with a domain - 
> just use a simple workgroup and there is no problem accessing your samba 
> server from any windows machine (> Win95).

   Depends on what you are doing and what software you are using.

   The usual 3rd party sorts of stuff should be fine though.

-- 
   Apple: because you really don't want to take any more video          ||| 
than your camera can hold. Really.                                     / | \
                     

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391

On 20/05/2011 06:40, Gordon wrote:
> Aragorn<aragorn@chatfactory.invalid>  wrote in news:ir3989$6eq$4@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>>>> The three things I want to do with it are:
>>>>>    - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
>>>>> by any work station.
>>>>
>>>> That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)
>>>
>>> As others have said, that's what /samba/ is for.  You can put the
>>> files in a directory under /src if you want.
>>
>> Well, he was asking about providing a *place* so I took that literally.
>> And Samba is only needed if some of the workstations run Windows.  If
>> the clients run GNU/Linux, he would be better off with NFS.
>
> I should be a bit more specific.  The workstations are running Win XP.
> I'll be adding another workstation latter this year and I'll be the
> primary user of that machine.  When that happens, I will seriously
> consider making that one a linux box.  The server is a different
> project.  I want it to provide network storage to the Win boxes
> via the Map Network Drive function.  Sounds like a job for Samba.

Yes, you want samba here.

I often like samba even for Linux-to-Linux sharing - I find it more 
flexible than NFS, and it seems to cope better if you get network 
problems.  NFS is a bit more efficient, and gives you more Linux 
features (named pipes, hard links, etc.) - but I haven't found the need 
for these in networked setups.  It's also a matter of taste, experience 
and convenience.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393

David Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/2011 06:40, Gordon wrote:
>> Aragorn<aragorn@chatfactory.invalid>  wrote in news:ir3989$6eq$4@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>>>>> The three things I want to do with it are:
>>>>>>    - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
>>>>>> by any work station.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> As others have said, that's what /samba/ is for.  You can put the
>>>> files in a directory under /src if you want.
>>>
>>> Well, he was asking about providing a *place* so I took that literally.
>>> And Samba is only needed if some of the workstations run Windows.  If
>>> the clients run GNU/Linux, he would be better off with NFS.
>>
>> I should be a bit more specific.  The workstations are running Win XP.
>> I'll be adding another workstation latter this year and I'll be the
>> primary user of that machine.  When that happens, I will seriously
>> consider making that one a linux box.  The server is a different
>> project.  I want it to provide network storage to the Win boxes
>> via the Map Network Drive function.  Sounds like a job for Samba.
> 
> Yes, you want samba here.
> 
> I often like samba even for Linux-to-Linux sharing - I find it more 
> flexible than NFS, and it seems to cope better if you get network 
> problems.  NFS is a bit more efficient, and gives you more Linux 
> features (named pipes, hard links, etc.) - but I haven't found the need 
> for these in networked setups.  It's also a matter of taste, experience 
> and convenience.
> 

Maybe things have improved, but I found SMB woeful with linux clients.

I simply hard NFS mount the server at boot and that's that. Its 'there' 
and behaves exactly like any normal mounted file system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399

On 2011-05-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/05/2011 06:40, Gordon wrote:
>>> Aragorn<aragorn@chatfactory.invalid>  wrote in news:ir3989$6eq$4@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>>>>> The three things I want to do with it are:
>>>>>>>    - provide a place to put various files that can be accessed
>>>>>>> by any work station.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what "/srv" on the server machine is for. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> As others have said, that's what /samba/ is for.  You can put the
>>>>> files in a directory under /src if you want.
>>>>
>>>> Well, he was asking about providing a *place* so I took that literally.
>>>> And Samba is only needed if some of the workstations run Windows.  If
>>>> the clients run GNU/Linux, he would be better off with NFS.
>>>
>>> I should be a bit more specific.  The workstations are running Win XP.
>>> I'll be adding another workstation latter this year and I'll be the
>>> primary user of that machine.  When that happens, I will seriously
>>> consider making that one a linux box.  The server is a different
>>> project.  I want it to provide network storage to the Win boxes
>>> via the Map Network Drive function.  Sounds like a job for Samba.
>> 
>> Yes, you want samba here.
>> 
>> I often like samba even for Linux-to-Linux sharing - I find it more 
>> flexible than NFS, and it seems to cope better if you get network 
>> problems.  NFS is a bit more efficient, and gives you more Linux 
>> features (named pipes, hard links, etc.) - but I haven't found the need 
>> for these in networked setups.  It's also a matter of taste, experience 
>> and convenience.
>> 
>
> Maybe things have improved, but I found SMB woeful with linux clients.
>
> I simply hard NFS mount the server at boot and that's that. Its 'there' 
> and behaves exactly like any normal mounted file system.

   I really haven't ever had any NFS problems. Sometimes apps will hang
if the NFS server goes away, but they tend to continue chugging along as
if nothing happened after the relevant server is kicked in the head. The
only really serious problem I've ever had with NFS is newer Ubuntus with
upstart.

   Startup gets hung up with something in the NFS startup sequence not
running perfectly and the whole startup sequence is buggered. Seems like
a cascade of failed dependencies.

-- 
   Apple: because you really don't want to take any more video          ||| 
than your camera can hold. Really.                                     / | \
                     

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402

On 2011-05-23, the following emerged from the brain of JEDIDIAH:
> On 2011-05-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Maybe things have improved, but I found SMB woeful with linux
>> clients.

Works quite fine these days.

>> I simply hard NFS mount the server at boot and that's that. Its
>> 'there' and behaves exactly like any normal mounted file system.
>
>    I really haven't ever had any NFS problems. Sometimes apps will
>    hang if the NFS server goes away, but they tend to continue
>    chugging along as if nothing happened after the relevant server
>    is kicked in the head. The only really serious problem I've ever
>    had with NFS is newer Ubuntus with upstart.
>
>    Startup gets hung up with something in the NFS startup sequence
>    not running perfectly and the whole startup sequence is buggered.
>    Seems like a cascade of failed dependencies.

Never had any real problems with NFS either. I have this one file
server at work sharing a bunch of stuff to several GNU/Linux clients,
and it is set up in a fail-over scheme with DRBD. It is no problem to
simply pull the plug on the primary server while a large copy is in
progress. After a while the secondary server kicks-in, takes over the
NFS resources and simply continues with the copy without losing a
single bit.

-- 
Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the
information he wants.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387

Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:ir1k0t$4iv$2@dont-
email.me:

>> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
>> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
>> for this.
> 
> Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
> workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.
> 
> If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
> essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
> exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)

Sorry; that would be a 1Ghz Athalon with about 256 or 512Mb of RAM.

This would be the server.
I have a pair of 2.5Ghz workstaions running Windows.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#388

On Friday 20 May 2011 06:44 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying
as Gordon wrote...

> Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:ir1k0t$4iv$2@dont-
> email.me:
> 
>>> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
>>> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
>>> for this.
>> 
>> Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
>> workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.
>> 
>> If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
>> essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
>> exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)
> 
> Sorry; that would be a 1Ghz Athalon with about 256 or 512Mb of RAM.
                              ^^^^^^^

Since you repeat the error, I presume that it's not a typo. ;-)  The
correct name is Athlon. ;-)

> This would be the server.

512 MB /may/ be enough for the server, but I would personally recommend
going for 1 GB, considering that the processor's already not too fast. 
You don't want it to be hitting swap all the time. ;-)

-- 
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389

Aragorn wrote:
> On Friday 20 May 2011 06:44 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying
> as Gordon wrote...
> 
>> Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:ir1k0t$4iv$2@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>>> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
>>>> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
>>>> for this.
>>> Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
>>> workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.
>>>
>>> If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
>>> essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
>>> exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)
>> Sorry; that would be a 1Ghz Athalon with about 256 or 512Mb of RAM.
>                               ^^^^^^^
> 
> Since you repeat the error, I presume that it's not a typo. ;-)  The
> correct name is Athlon. ;-)
> 
>> This would be the server.
> 
> 512 MB /may/ be enough for the server, but I would personally recommend
> going for 1 GB, considering that the processor's already not too fast. 
> You don't want it to be hitting swap all the time. ;-)
> 
It wont

No graffix mate. Ergo no need for RAM.

with just samba running its all FILE I/O and really you may decide that 
you want to fast write the disk anyway if there is any cahnce of power 
failures etc.
I am on my 4th instance of a windows file server based on Linux. None 
had more than 512M.

IDE-> SATA made far more difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394

On Fri, 20 May 2011 04:44:32 UTC in comp.os.linux.setup, Gordon 
<gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

> Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:ir1k0t$4iv$2@dont-
> email.me:
> 
> >> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
> >> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
> >> for this.
> > 
> > Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
> > workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.
> > 
> > If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
> > essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
> > exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)
> 
> Sorry; that would be a 1Ghz Athalon with about 256 or 512Mb of RAM.
> 
> This would be the server.
> I have a pair of 2.5Ghz workstaions running Windows.  

My only thought about this is that a machine of this age and spec is likely to 
eat electricity. It might be cheaper in the long run to buy a small modern box 
that'll do the job and not cost an arm and a leg to run on a daily basis.

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395

Trevor Hemsley wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 04:44:32 UTC in comp.os.linux.setup, Gordon 
> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
> 
>> Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:ir1k0t$4iv$2@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>>> I want to do this on the cheap.  So i have a couple of
>>>> retired 1 Gig Athalon machines I would like to repurpose
>>>> for this.
>>> Do you mean 1 GHz or 1 GB of RAM?  If the latter, that's plenty for a
>>> workstation, but perhaps a bit tight for a (busy) server.
>>>
>>> If the former, 1 GHz is more than enough as a workstation which will
>>> essentially be working as a thin client - well, X11 forwarding is not
>>> exactly the same, but you can go the "thin client way" too. ;-)
>> Sorry; that would be a 1Ghz Athalon with about 256 or 512Mb of RAM.
>>
>> This would be the server.
>> I have a pair of 2.5Ghz workstaions running Windows.  
> 
> My only thought about this is that a machine of this age and spec is likely to 
> eat electricity. It might be cheaper in the long run to buy a small modern box 
> that'll do the job and not cost an arm and a leg to run on a daily basis.
> 
Its a very simple exercise in cost-benefit analysis.

Say a server runs at 60W, and a year is 10,000 hours (close enough).

It therefore uses 600 units a year, roughly.

In UK terms that's about £72.

which is about the cost of a low power motherboard BUT.

How much less will that use?

Did you need the heat anyway?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396

On Fri, 20 May 2011 10:43:12 UTC in comp.os.linux.setup, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Trevor Hemsley wrote:
> > My only thought about this is that a machine of this age and spec is likely to 
> > eat electricity. It might be cheaper in the long run to buy a small modern box 
> > that'll do the job and not cost an arm and a leg to run on a daily basis.
> > 
> Its a very simple exercise in cost-benefit analysis.
> 
> Say a server runs at 60W, and a year is 10,000 hours (close enough).
> 
> It therefore uses 600 units a year, roughly.
> 
> In UK terms that's about £72.
> 
> which is about the cost of a low power motherboard BUT.
> 
> How much less will that use?
> 
> Did you need the heat anyway?

An AMD Thunderbird 1GHz (which seems like the most likely candidate for a "1GHz 
Athalon") has a TDP of 54W and that doesn't take into account the usage of the 
motherboard and assorted peripherals. Something like an Acer Revo uses ~20W at 
idle. At a guess then that's a payback period of a couple of years or so. You 
also have the added reliability of running on something brand new vs something >
10 years old.

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.setup

csiph-web