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.
What are the pros and cons of adding full-blown KDE desktop to an Ubuntu server?
I have a power-house tower that I use for a workstation in my home office. There is lots of horsepower and features, but much of it is idle. I thought that I would configure server features and make them available to family and visiting friends or colleagues.
My workstation of choice is Linux Mint-XX KDE so I'm waiting for the Mint-17 KDE final release update. I'm thinking it will be easier to add full KDE to the Ubuntu 14.04 Server instead of trying to add server parts to either Mint-17 KDE or Kubuntu.
What are the pros and cons of adding full-blown KDE desktop to an Ubuntu server?
in my opinion, a dedicated server should not even have a desktop, least of all such a fancy, bulky one as KDE. A text-based shell should be all it needs, typically accessed via ssh, rarely via a local console.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintDanBert
I have a power-house tower that I use for a workstation in my home office. There is lots of horsepower and features, but much of it is idle. I thought that I would configure server features and make them available to family and visiting friends or colleagues.
Most contemporary PCs are vastly oversized for private or small office use (Why buy a faster PC? It'll just wait faster), so it seems natural to assign them one or the other extra task. Acting as a file server, intranet web server, or local mail server would be typical things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintDanBert
My workstation of choice is Linux Mint-XX KDE so I'm waiting for the Mint-17 KDE final release update. I'm thinking it will be easier to add full KDE to the Ubuntu 14.04 Server instead of trying to add server parts to either Mint-17 KDE or Kubuntu.
Honestly, I wouldn't use KDE deliberately. Too fancy, too playful, too heavy for my liking. But hey, your call.
As for the better approach: I think it's much easier to add some "server" functionality to an existing desktop than vice versa. What do you have in mind? What about dnsmasq, a combination of a DHCP server and a local DNS forwarder? Very quick and easy to set up. Or samba, the most frequently used file server? There are one or two tripwires about getting it to work, but it's not rocket science, either. You think of Apache to set up a local intranet? The setup is fairly easy. Same for its companions PHP and mySQL.
Installing and configuring a full-fledged desktop on a system that doesn't have one yet, however, is a tedious, awkward business.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
As far as I was aware Ubuntu "server" is just Ubuntu without Unity installed and a slightly more involved installer so that things like mdadm RAID are more easily recognised at install time?
Any desktop Linux install ought to be as easy to set up as a server as any "server" install as it's just a matter of installing the relevant servers as you would in a "server" install.
The only downside I can see to having a full blown desktop machine act as a server is that you're going to be using whatever idle power it needs 24/7 and is the reason I recently bought a Raspberry Pi which by my reckoning uses somewhere between 1/10 and 1/4 of what my desktop does.
Any desktop Linux install ought to be as easy to set up as a server as any "server" install as it's just a matter of installing the relevant servers as you would in a "server" install.
that's about what I was trying to express.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273
The only downside I can see to having a full blown desktop machine act as a server is that you're going to be using whatever idle power it needs 24/7
Well, it depends. If you imagine a family-like community using that "server", there might be consent among them that everyone of the party might just turn on the so-called server when they need it, and shut it down later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273
... the reason I recently bought a Raspberry Pi which by my reckoning uses somewhere between 1/10 and 1/4 of what my desktop does.
That depends. It depends on whether you compare the power consumption of the mainboard/Pi itself (then the ratio would be even more extreme) or the entire system including peripherals. The Raspberry Pi itself runs at about 2W, while a decent contemporary mainboard easily burns about 100..150W. That's a factor of 50..75. If you include two HDDs, you're at about 160W for the desktop system and 12W for the Pi, still a ratio of almost 15.
The only really noticeable bottleneck is the lack of a Gigabit NIC on the Pi's behalf.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc CPU
Well, it depends. If you imagine a family-like community using that "server", there might be consent among them that everyone of the party might just turn on the so-called server when they need it, and shut it down later.
Very true. I just thought it worth pointing out as it's something people don't always consider. There's the noise and heat of a PC also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc CPU
That depends. It depends on whether you compare the power consumption of the mainboard/Pi itself (then the ratio would be even more extreme) or the entire system including peripherals. The Raspberry Pi itself runs at about 2W, while a decent contemporary mainboard easily burns about 100..150W. That's a factor of 50..75. If you include two HDDs, you're at about 160W for the desktop system and 12W for the Pi, still a ratio of almost 15.
The only really noticeable bottleneck is the lack of a Gigabit NIC on the Pi's behalf.
[X] Doc CPU
I was being conservative and I do have an external USB drive on the Pi also. All I know is that since what I want is an always-on SSH/VPN/etc. type solution the extra electricity PC would use will pay for the Pi prettty quickly.
I suspect the "home NAS" solutions would give similar results for different loads.
As mentioned above -- it may not be relevant but it's something people sometimes forget.
I just thought it worth pointing out as it's something people don't always consider.
I guess you're right there. And even if they do, there's always a good chance of convenience kicking in after a while. From "You can leave it on, I'll need it in a few minutes" it's not a long way to "Ah, let's just leave it running, we'll need it again in the morning anyway".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273
There's the noise and heat of a PC also.
Heat directly correlates with power consumption, and noise may be a negligible factor if the PC isn't exactly in a bedroom. Besides, there are machines that run very quiet - mine here, for instance, just emits a gentle rush of flowing air, but from a distance of two meters I hardly hear it any more. In the typical ambient noise of the day, that is. When it's totally quiet at night, I can even hear it in the adjacent living room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273
I suspect the "home NAS" solutions would give similar results for different loads.
Yes, probably - looking at the ratings of their power supply blocks. Typically 12V/1.5A or 12V/2A, which includes a little reserve, so we're at an average of roughly 10..15W.
As far as I was aware Ubuntu "server" is just Ubuntu without Unity installed and a slightly more involved installer so that things like mdadm RAID are more easily recognised at install time?
Yes, that, and many of the traditional server suites are pre-installed and configured as well. NOTE -- A while back I played with Ubuntu Server and it seems that they ran 'tasksel' app during the install. For desktop *buntu, that does not happen unless you specifically load the package and run it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273
Any desktop Linux install ought to be as easy to set up as a server as any "server" install as it's just a matter of installing the relevant servers as you would in a "server" install.
...
Agreed! There is the 'tasksel' package and utility. There one selects various services from a user interface, packages are installed and configured. The services are the usual suspects like web browser, DNS, sendmail/procmail, server editions of SSH, FTP, DHCP and such.
So my options become:
Perform a workstation install with some desktop environment and then use 'tasksel' or similar to add the various services I want.
Perform a server install with the services that I want and then use 'synaptic' or similar to add my favorite desktop environment.
Both are equally trivial from a things to click and type perspective. Does anyone see reasons to prefer one over the other?
Thanks to all for the input,
~~~ 0;-Dan
Last edited by SaintDanBert; 06-25-2014 at 09:29 PM.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintDanBert
Agreed! There is the 'tasksel' package and utility. There one selects various services from a user interface, packages are installed and configured. The services are the usual suspects like web browser, DNS, sendmail/procmail, server editions of SSH, FTP, DHCP and such.
From my experience installing services through synaptic or using apt-get produces the same results as tasksel. I don't think tasksel does anything beyond telling the installer to add the packages required to the install. That's not to say it isn't useful but just that I don't think it adds much beyond what apt-get will give you.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
I'd do it differently by installing the server and getting it doing what I wanted and then install a DE via either tasksel or via apt-get. I certainly wouldn't be putting KDE on it if the DE is just to do mundane graphical jobs however if you have a preference for KDE's native software then by all means install KDE. I'd probaby install FluxBox, MATE, or XFCE, depending on what I wanted the DE for. If it was just to have a DE I'd choose FluxBox, if I wanted more it would be MATE or XFCE depending on the native applications I wanted (XFCE has a few while MATE is really just a DE that you add applications to).
From my experience installing services through synaptic or using apt-get produces the same results as tasksel. I don't think tasksel does anything beyond telling the installer to add the packages required to the install. That's not to say it isn't useful but just that I don't think it adds much beyond what apt-get will give you.
I "believe" that if one asks 'tasksel' for a mail server you get a bundle of packages. In contrast, 'synaptic' will happily install sendmail, procmail, and any other packages one at the time.
I'd do it differently by installing the server and getting it doing what I wanted and then install a DE via either tasksel or via apt-get.
My own thinking is starting to lean this way as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
I certainly wouldn't be putting KDE on it if the DE is just to do mundane graphical jobs however if you have a preference for KDE's native software then by all means install KDE. I'd probaby install FluxBox, MATE, or XFCE, depending on what I wanted the DE for. If it was just to have a DE I'd choose FluxBox, if I wanted more it would be MATE or XFCE depending on the native applications I wanted (XFCE has a few while MATE is really just a DE that you add applications to).
To clarify my situation for those who are still following along, I have and use a power workstation for my home office work. I happen to prefer the world according to KDE. Since I have more cycles and other resources on the box than my work demands, I want to deploy "services" to the home-LAN for family, friends, and colleagues. In addition, I plan to deploy some services {eg -- a web server running WordPress™} so that I might learn more about them.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintDanBert
I "believe" that if one asks 'tasksel' for a mail server you get a bundle of packages. In contrast, 'synaptic' will happily install sendmail, procmail, and any other packages one at the time.
Regards,
~~~ 0;-Dan
Ah, yes, I did forget about that. I tend only to use tasksel to install SSH or, occasionally, Apache.
For those who might have little knowledge about 'tasksel':
Code:
prompt$ # open a shell or console window and type
prompt$ sudo tasksel
...
... an 'ncurses' graphical interface appears
...
| [ ] Basic Ubuntu server │
│ [ ] OpenSSH server │
│ [ ] DNS server │
│ [ ] LAMP server │
│ [ ] Mail server │
│ [ ] PostgreSQL database │
│ [X] Print server │
│ [X] Samba file server │
│ [ ] Tomcat Java server │
│ [ ] Ubuntu Cloud Image (instance) │
│ [ ] Virtual Machine host │
│ [ ] 2D/3D creation and editing suite │
│ [ ] Audio recording and editing suite │
│ [ ] Edubuntu desktop │
│ [ ] Kubuntu Active │
│ [ ] Kubuntu desktop │
│ [ ] Kubuntu full │
│ [ ] Large selection of font packages │
│ [ ] Lubuntu Desktop │
│ [ ] Lubuntu minimal installation │
│ [ ] Mythbuntu additional roles │
│ [ ] Mythbuntu frontend │
│ [ ] Mythbuntu master backend │
│ [ ] Mythbuntu slave backend │
│ [ ] Photograph touchup and editing suite │
│ [ ] Publishing applications │
│ [ ] Ubuntu desktop │
│ [X] Ubuntu desktop USB │
│ [ ] Ubuntu touch │
│ [ ] Video creation and editing suite │
│ [ ] Xubuntu desktop │
│ [ ] Edubuntu live DVD │
│ [ ] Kubuntu Active Remix live CD │
│ [ ] Kubuntu live CD │
│ [ ] Kubuntu live DVD │
│ [ ] Lubuntu live CD │
│ [ ] Ubuntu Studio live DVD │
│ [ ] Ubuntu live CD │
│ [ ] Ubuntu live USB │
│ [ ] Xubuntu live CD │
│ [ ] Manual package selection │
│ │
│ [OK] │
│ │
Using arrow keys, you move up-down in the list and press SPACE to select a "task".
Look in /usr/share/tasksel/*.desc for details about what happens for each
selected task.
Using the package name, you can ask 'tasksel' to explain some things
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
