LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Server (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/)
-   -   Need recommendation for Proliant DL580 G3 with quad Xeon, 16 GB RAM (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/need-recommendation-for-proliant-dl580-g3-with-quad-xeon-16-gb-ram-863453/)

pocketazes 02-17-2011 10:52 PM

Need recommendation for Proliant DL580 G3 with quad Xeon, 16 GB RAM
 
I originally posted this thread on the Linux - Newbie forum but I think this may be the most suited forum for this question.

Hi experts,

I'm very new to Linux and I'm looking for some guidance on which version of Linux server I should install. I read several posts that try to compare Slackware, Debian server, and Ubuntu but the message I got is that each version has its pros/cons. The version that you end up using should ultimately be the best for what you are trying to do. I'll try to explain what I'm trying to do to see if it helps in making a recommendation.

I purchased a HP Proliant DL580 G3 with the following configuration:

(4) Intel Xeon 3.0Ghz CPU's W/ 8mb Cache/667mHz FSB
16GB RAM @ 16 x 1GB ELPIDA PC2-3200-333
(2) 36.4GB 15k U320 SCSI Hard Drives
(2) Power Supplies
DVD Drive

This server will be configured as my web server and database server. I will use Apache and MySQL.

I want the server to be as secure as possible and will be following the recommendations on the book "Hacking Linux Exposed" to configure Linux.

I would like to install a version of Linux that will utilize all of the server's resources - the 4 x Xeon Processors and the 16 GB of RAM. As for the RAID configuration I plan to just have the hard drives mirrored. And lastly someone recommended that I cache my website in the RAM for faster load times. I have not researched this yet but would like the Linux version suggested to allow me to do this. I assume any Linux version would allow me to do this but I thought it would be safer to include it in this list.

Thank you in advance for your guidance.

salasi 02-18-2011 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketazes (Post 4262346)
I originally posted this thread on the Linux - Newbie forum but I think this may be the most suited forum for this question.

The correct procedure in this circumstance is to report your own thread and ask a mod to move it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketazes (Post 4262346)
...but the message I got is that each version has its pros/cons.

That is what you'd expect, isn't it? I mean, a version that only had cons wouldn't get used much, leaving only the versions with some pros in existence and being actively developed.

Quote:

(4) Intel Xeon 3.0Ghz CPU's W/ 8mb Cache/667mHz FSB
16GB RAM @ 16 x 1GB ELPIDA PC2-3200-333
(2) 36.4GB 15k U320 SCSI Hard Drives
(2) Power Supplies
DVD Drive
Nice, but it doesn't do anything to help prefer one candidate distro over any other.

Quote:

This server will be configured as my web server and database server. I will use Apache and MySQL.
Again, any candidate OS will have Apache and Mysql available.

Quote:

I want the server to be as secure as possible and will be following the recommendations on the book "Hacking Linux Exposed" to configure Linux.
Good that you want it to be secure, but that is more about you taking appropriate precautions and having appropriate procedures, rather than what comes 'out of the box'.

Quote:

I would like to install a version of Linux that will utilize all of the server's resources - the 4 x Xeon Processors and the 16 GB of RAM.
You'll want 64 bit; Apache is (incomprehensibly, to me, at least) significantly faster on 64 bit, and it gives better support of that ram. But then, everything that is a server OS comes in 64 bit, so that doesn't help in separating server OSs.

Quote:

And lastly someone recommended that I cache my website in the RAM for faster load times.
I have suspicions about this recommendation, at least as stated.
  • If it meant something like 'use squid in httpd accelerator mode' then that might be sensible
  • The advantage from caching depends a lot on the content and how dynamic it is (however you do the caching). So, it depends a lot on the nature of the site.
  • If you were using something complex like a CMS, what you cache could be several things, and a bland statement like 'use caching' could several quite different approaches, some advantageous, some not. And that depends on various unknown things.

jwl17330536 02-18-2011 11:55 AM

I don't think anyone will be able to give you the answer that you are looking for. Everyone here has their own opionions on which OS to use. Asking us here what OS to use would be like asking which race car to buy on a racing forum.

pocketazes 02-18-2011 05:42 PM

Thank you for the feedback guys. I decided to go with CentOS.

archtoad6 02-19-2011 04:05 AM

The original discussion is here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...580-g3-863441/

Notes:
pocketazes,

As salasi advises above, please report your own post to request a mod to move it to a more appropiate forum; we will be happy to help.


salasi,

Thank you for reporting this. We rely heavily on the vigillance of all members, esp. Senior Members, like yourself, to bring situations like this to the mods attention. In the future when you notice a cross post, please try to report the cross post, not your answer. Also, it would helpful to report the thread that needs to be closed, not the one that should stay open. Finally, while not required, it is always helpful & appreciated to include a link to other post of the pair. Just some friendly suggestions, we appreciate your efforts to make LQ the best forum on the 'Net. Thank you.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.