Linux - ServerThis forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
the question now
why do u say that a dist is better than a dist if it used like a server
is it because of new packages ?????? or what?
I can say ubuntu is a very good dist because a lot of GUI or it is more easier than other dist
The usual differences between server distros are stability, support and the default tool set ... basically the same as regular distros.
and put it in context, somewhat, in order to deal with:
Quote:
is it because of new packages ?????? or what?
I can say ubuntu is a very good dist because a lot of GUI or it is more easier than other dist
Firstly, having a gui is usually irrelevant in a server, because you won't use a gui. Well, you wouldn't in a professional application, you might if its just a home server (and you aren't bothered about doing things correctly). So forget the GUI and whether it has nice colours out of the box or whether you have to work at it to make it the way you want.
So if normally you would choose your distro based on how it looks and whether you can get whizzy rotating cube effects as you are switching desktops, you ought to revise your way of making a choice of distro.
Secondly, it is going to be dangerous to have your server administered by someone who does not know what they are doing. So 'ease of use' is 'ease of use for someone who knows what they are doing' and not 'ease of use for someone who can only cope if they have wizards and dumbed down interfaces available'. And while I'd like to argue that all you need is emacs and a bunch of .conf files, I have to confess that I don't really like emacs all tha much myself
So while I am not clear whether you are asking a question or making a statement about Ubuntu being a very good distro, it certainly isn't good in this context 'because a lot of gui' (whatever that means), and, in effect, it isn't 'more easier than other dist'.
What is different about server usage from ordinary desktop usage isn't some absolute dividing line, but a question of emphasis; surely you can see that security gets a higher emphasis, and that, in turn, means that the availability and promptness of security updates is massively important.
If you were to choose and ordinary (non-LTS) version of ubuntu, for example, for server usage, you would find that they cut off updates for that version pretty sharply, and that can rapidly leave you with an insecure server. That isn't a good idea, so what might you do about it?
As an alternative, you could take the standard .04 and .10 releases and just update when a new one comes out, as you might on a normal desktop machine. Every time you update, you are going to have to go through each of your configured services and check whether tehy are all working as expected. Now you may be able to script test cases to help with that, but running through this every six months really doesn't sound like my idea of entertainment, but YMMV.
As another alternative, you could consider only using LTS versions; this is at least arguable as a sensible approach, but it would be easier to argue for, if Ubuntu didn't have a flawed approach to the production of LTS versions and a history of introducing new problems with incremental upgrades (ok, this must happen to everybody at times, but making kernel upgrades a regular breakage point and not learning lessons...please, give me a break, this is not an advantage).
So, I want to point out that there are two sorts of stability here
not crashing
remaining the same thing; non-mutability
the first is pretty obvious when it comes to servers, but the second is important, too. If you don't have that sort of stability the platform will break the services. The worst case would be something like testing iptables on initial server configuration and later finding that it no longer works the way it used to because echoing stuff to sysctl no longer works due to permissions issues.
That would be mega-horrible (and I'm not suggesting that this specific case is likely, just that it is the sort of thing that could happen) and unless you have a very good process for acceptance testing of upgrades there is a clear risk that there is a period of exposure before you notice what is going on.
So you need fast security upgrades and you need long platform non-obsolescence much more than you do on a desktop and the choice must be seen in this light.
To return to what your original question seemed to be about: performance. My assertion is that performance is more an issue of configuration than of which distro (and therefeore default configurations can be an issue, if you do not understand what is going under the hood); so the question is more about whether you know what you are doing well enough to extract the performance potential rather than 'which distro has the highest performance'.
And as has been mentioned before, Solaris isn't Linux and has a rather different networking stack, which ought to, on paper, be capable of better performance. Whether that is delivered in your use case is a function of a number of things and is an open question. Also, on paper, filesystems can make a real performance difference in situation that are disk-intensive.
Firstly, having a gui is usually irrelevant in a server, because you won't use a gui. Well, you wouldn't in a professional application, you might if its just a home server
Or if you have been trained in MS Servers where the gui is billed as an advantage
Quote:
(and you aren't bothered about doing things correctly).
Ah, covers my previous point
Quote:
So forget the GUI and whether it has nice colours out of the box or whether you have to work at it to make it the way you want.
Seconded.
Quote:
If you don't have that sort [mutability] of stability the platform will break the services.
I know lots of people who do not upgrade their linux servers all that much - sometimes not at all. I even asked after a server I installed in a small business and the staff their had forgotten it existed - it was in use, just had given no problems and they have been completely malware and crash free since it went in.
While that's a great endorsement, I figured I'd better get it's security patches since it did face the web.
Once the server distro is settled, an upgrade strategy is needed. Distros will differ there too, but thu biggest difference will still be the deployment.
What we seem to be saying here, in connection with the first post, is that there is no substantial difference between distros for the situation described.
The Linux Virtual Server is a highly scalable and highly available server built on a cluster of real servers, with the load balancer running on the Linux operating system. The architecture of the server cluster is fully transparent to end users, and the users interact as if it were a single high-performance virtual server. For more information,.
The Linux Virtual Server as an advanced load balancing solution can be used to build highly scalable and highly available network services, such as scalable web, cache, mail, ftp, media and VoIP services.
Thanks.
Regards
Last edited by GrapefruiTgirl; 06-29-2009 at 05:12 PM.
Reason: Signature/Spam removed
I prefer to use Debian for my Internet facing servers.
1. I am familiar with and prefer the package management system used in Debian (obligatory favorite Distro point)
2. Debian allows you to do a Base Install then build your system.
Point number 2 is the big one.. A Debian base install is a bare Linux machine with NO GUI and NO extra services. when I say no extra services I mean things like SSHd are not even installed. from this point I can build the server adding Only the applications and services I need without having all sorts of extras installed and running that I do not need or want.
So for a LAMP server I might do the following aptitude install apache2 mysql-server-50 mysql-client-5.0 php5 libapache2-mod-php5 ssh-server
Done.. a nice clean server with the packages needed for a LAMP server.
So many Distros tend to think they know what you need or want on a box, and install a lot of additional services by default.
Less is more from a Performance and Security standpoint imho...
Just to add my two cents worth...I think that you have received a lot of good feedback here. I personally started with CentOS and have been moving to Debian. My reasons are simple. While CentOS is by far, the most widely used distro (including RHEL), when you install it, unless you really know what you are doing, a lot of unnecessary packages are installed and started by default. Also, CentOS uses rpm's and YUM package manager, which is prone to breaking, in my experience. Debian, on the other hand, gives you much better control over the default packages, and uses a much better package manager, apt-get.
As for performance, I can not say that one is better than the other.
the question now
why do u say that a dist is better than a dist if it used like a server
is it because of new packages ?????? or what?
I can say ubuntu is a very good dist because a lot of GUI or it is more easier than other dist
Generally servers are admin'd at a command line level not at a GUI level... unless you have a specific reason for needing a gui on a server having it there and running is a waste of resources and makes it more difficult to secure (especially for a novice).
thanks a lot for the information , it was very useful
but i have still a little question
i have a machine and it is time to choose the stable powerful server for it
1-Debian
2-Slackware
3-CentOS
4-Solaris (Unix)
5-FreeBSD (BSD)
all of them are very good but which one shall i use for http server??
I am not much of linux man myself but where I work there are linux wizards and they prefer Ubuntu for most of our servers (using Xen as virual machines under these servers) and beside Sun/Solaris (which cost a lot) they us FreeBSD for security reason on DNS and the pbx (voIP) servers.
the web server is a xen on ubuntu.
but if majority of ppl say centos then I am willing to also give it a try.
the problem with redhat (the enterprise ed.) is that they have gone commercial and require you to register and pay for support.
btw none of the ubuntu servers here use any GUI at all.
From those distros listed in your last reply I'd say by far Debian.
Apt-get is much nicer / smother imo, and easier to edit, as well as how Debian breaks up files (e.g. apache config in several files).
I use Debian for my own file/dev machine @ home as well as my previous employer uses it solely.
I'm no fan of Centos / Red Hat, which I use at current job. Absolutely don't like Yum, the package manager, as well as CentOS is in several things quite outdated compared to some things in Debian Stable, e.g. one of the things we use alot, PHP, is only available in 5.1.6 in the current CentoS version, 5.3, compared to current Debian's stable (Lenny), with 5.2.6, and even the old-stable, Etch, has 5.2.0.
Imo there's no need for a Ubuntu Server, as there's (afaik) nothing in there what Debian cannot do either.
Ubuntu Server Edition probably only exists as an additional revenue-through-support stream for Canonical.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.