Hi,
please let me that does Red Hat linux have central database concept like windows AD. If yes then it is available in RH 9 of only in RH Server product.

2- Please also let me know that how many total partition should i make durning installing RH 9 .

/ ?%
/boot ?%
/Swap double of ram
.
.
.
.
.
and rest of home many partitions should i prepair


3- Is Fedora 9 is alternate of RH,what is your opinion about Fedora?

thanks in adavnce.

RH9 is way to old to use. If you want a stable RH, look at CentOS, the community edition of RHEL. Fedora is a cutting edge distro that lacks the stability or lifecycle of RHEL.

The partition quesion depends on what you are doing with the computer, what filesystems you plan to use, etc.

Number of partitions is dependant on what your going to do with the machine. On my workstation I have 1 swap partion 4x my RAM and one ext3 filesystem. On my postfix installs where I use it as an MX server I make a swap .5 or more of my RAM. I make a /var partition for logging and postfix stuff, then one more partition for the remaining filesystem. If I am building mailboxes for users I have swap less or equal to RAM and a /var partition, and another partition mounted as /var/spool/mail for mailboxes. one remaining partition for the rest of filesystem.

Yes and no. AD is pretty horrible (at least based on early AD implimentations, which are all that I have seen) so I can't see that anyone would want anything that is really like AD, unless you are supporting Windows machines.

If you are supporting Windows machines, you may want to look at Samba (can't think of a distro for which Samba is unavailable, but there will be one somewhere...). Samba, however, isn't a full AD 'clone', but it does support what you might consider a basic set of AD functionality and more recent versions are fuller than older versions. (And, it does more besides.)

So Samba probably does what you want (if what you want isn't too hard and you can learn how to do it), but almost everything has it.

If you are not supporting Windows machines there are probably tools that you can use to achieve specific objectives that are similar to stuff that AD does (but it might not be one monolithic tool that you use). To say any more on that, it would be useful to know your objectives.

Not too many, and not too few. The concepts 'too many' and 'too few' are rather dependant upon usage, so you'll need to say more about that.

Here's my list:

• I'd always want home on a separate partition.
• I usually place /boot on a separate partition, partly because I like that on a plain straightforward ext2 partition and I may use other things (i.e. a journalling filesystem) for the others.
  You can make a case for things like

• /opt
• /tmp
• /usr
• /varon separate partitions, particularly if you intend to set up some partitions differently from others (I can't see me wanting atime on for /var for instance, so that is always likely to be set as noatime).

But many things will work and work reliably so I can't say that my way is the best as many others will work.

(Note; the less disk space you have, the fewer partitions you should use; if you are struggling to have enough disk space for your install, you only make the problem worse by havingto work out how to civvy up that space between many partitions). And if the machine had a specific purpose, like a database server or a file server that would change my view of specifically the high traffic partition.


If you want. This is an old rule of thumb and probably any success that it had was probably as much accidental as anything else. You'd might be better using the right amount, but you probably don't know what that is. Using too much won't be harmful (and it won't be advantageous, either). Using too little is rather more harmful, but many systems have so much RAM these days that you would rarely notice if they had zero swap. OTOH, hard disk space is cheap, too...

I've never really liked the RH stream (well, not this century, anyway) but your mileage will vary. The latest Fedora releases are certainly much improved over, say, Fedora 7 and I wouldn't want to put you off trying a Fedora of some kind just because I don't particularly like them.

thanks all of you for your detail replies. Well i want to install Linux as an alternate of Windows xp. Prior i have worked on Windows 2003 server,DNS,DHCP ISA and Exchange. I want to switch to Linux due to its stability and power.
I am sure that Linux mail server should be solid as compaired to Ms Exchange but does it has alternate of MS ISA?

At the moment i want to understand Linux.I just install RH9 and do all automatic installation which linux made by default but i want that i should work on it as professional way. For it i arrange 80 GB HD so i may start my work and use internet on it as well.
Which file system should i choose ext3 i hope is that best.Should ext3 file system i may make my all hard disk partitions or it will be for a specific partition?

Thanks again for your help.

Gardenair

You are really shooting yourself in the foot needlessly by trying to use RH9. The pool of people with current and relevant experience with RH9 is going to be EXTREMELY limited. Support for RH9 was dropped in 2003. Just think of all the advances since then. You would be much, much, better off going with Centos5.2. Centos is RHEL(RedHat Enterprise Linux) with the logos removed. It is free to download and update. RH9 is so old that it will have only minimal relevance to current distros. How much relevance does Win3.11 have to Vista?

It has been pointed out to you several times, that, by definition, if you are proceeding by installing RH9 now, you are not proceeding as a professional would. It is difficult to understand why you are not taking that point on board.

'Best' is difficult, or impossible, to say -you are asking for a quality comparison and we have no understanding of the importance of the various qualities to you; you may wish to look at several of the protracted debates on this site on the subject. It is probably reasonable to say that there is no clear answer on the subject - more 'horses for courses' than 'x is better than y' - which is why there is a choice.

While personally I use Reiser, I think you can say that ext3 is good enough in the simple kind of case that you have (which isn't quite the same as 'best' of course).

I'd use a journalling system for all of your partitions except for boot and swap. So, if your journalling system of choice is ext3, that would be ext3 for all of those partitions.

Well, people know RedHat as an enterprise OS and then they find that RH9 is the only one that is easy to find and free. But the fact is that RH9 is now so viable that RedHat won't even bother supporting it anymore. Jeez, why get RH9 when you can get a free clone like CentOS 5, which is every bit like the latest RedHat and vastly superior to the old stuff...