New Linux server from ground up

greenpoise · 11-23-2010, 03:09 PM

Ok. These are my needs. I am looking for leads/advice. Just looking for the best/most reliable setup. In a nutshell, I would love to have a Domain Controller no DHCP File server. I want to leave the DHCP to the router. I need virtual to run a software off from it. Samba server and that is basically it. My questions are:

1. Can I have a Domain Controller without DHCP server?
2. Should I run virtual server headless? so I dont install any gui?
3. This should have been my 1st question. I have two disks, is raid handled by the Bios or do I have to do something in linux(DMRAID)?

I have worked with many if not all the things I have mentioned here, however, I have never done it from scratch.

Thanks beforehand for helping me out on this one

Dan.

stress_junkie · 11-23-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenpoise

Ok. These are my needs. I am looking for leads/advice. Just looking for the best/most reliable setup. In a nutshell, I would love to have a Domain Controller no DHCP File server. I want to leave the DHCP to the router. I need virtual to run a software off from it. Samba server and that is basically it. My questions are:

1. Can I have a Domain Controller without DHCP server?

A domain controller? Are you trying to set up a Windows network using Samba? Or do you mean a DNS server?

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenpoise

2. Should I run virtual server headless? so I dont install any gui?

If you have a monitor then use it. A headless system is a pain when something goes wrong, particularly if the network stops working (which is how you would administer a headless system).

The GUI environments often have useful applications for system administration. I would use a GUI environment even if I only used terminal window applications. It can be very useful to switch between and copy/paste between terminal windows on one screen.

Even if you go with a headless system you will need X and a window manager to run GUI applications from remote log in sessions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenpoise

3. This should have been my 1st question. I have two disks, is raid handled by the Bios or do I have to do something in linux(DMRAID)?

Forget about RAID. It is also a pain. High maintenance. One more thing that can break. That sort of thing.

Simple is better.

beowulfnode · 11-23-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stress_junkie

Forget about RAID. It is also a pain. High maintenance. One more thing that can break. That sort of thing.

Simple is better.

If your data is important to you then some form of protection against disk failure is a must. This does not always mean raid, and can range from:

when ever you think of it, copy your important files to a usb stick/hdd manually
using raid
using raid + backups
using raid + backups + off-site backups

all the way to

multiple sites with multiple redundant networks dedicated to your storage sync + backup traffic, where each site hosts redundant servers each with it's own redundant storage devices, such as a Gluster Storage Platform network where each storage node uses ZFS raidz for it's local storage to be grouped and mirrored with the other nodes and physical sites, and then on top of that backups of the entire system.

or you could just stick to backups on a usb stick or even 2 sticks.

I personally am implementing a ubuntu nas with
- zfs-fuse in a raidz1 setup (similar to raid5)
- samba
- ssh
for my home data storage + protection. I'll probably add a script to copy my irreplaceable files to another hdd as an extra layer of protection for those files.

PS.

Quote:

is raid handled by the Bios or do I have to do something in linux(DMRAID)?

RAID can be handled by either hardware or software in linux. Either is fine. Some of the linux people here at work prefer linux software raid over cheap fake raid provided by most motherboards.

stress_junkie · 11-23-2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowulfnode

If your data is important to you then some form of protection against disk failure is a must.
This does not always mean raid, and can range from:

when ever you think of it, copy your important files to a usb stick/hdd manually
using raid
using raid + backups
using raid + backups + off-site backups

I didn't say not to do backups.
RAID is not a substitute for backups.
Backups were not part of the conversation.
The question was not how to conduct daily operations.

greenpoise · 11-23-2010, 10:43 PM

Thanks for the insight. Let me go over your reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stress_junkie

A domain controller? Are you trying to set up a Windows network using Samba? Or do you mean a DNS server?

Samba server for windows workstations

Quote:

Forget about RAID. It is also a pain. High maintenance. One more thing that can break. That sort of thing.

Simple is better.

So use the two disks as two separate disks? I agree simpler is better but Raid 1 provides instant backup which is a plus, right?

greenpoise · 11-23-2010, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowulfnode

If your data is important to you then some form of protection against disk failure is a must. This does not always mean raid, and can range from:

when ever you think of it, copy your important files to a usb stick/hdd manually
using raid
using raid + backups
using raid + backups + off-site backups

all the way to

multiple sites with multiple redundant networks dedicated to your storage sync + backup traffic, where each site hosts redundant servers each with it's own redundant storage devices, such as a Gluster Storage Platform network where each storage node uses ZFS raidz for it's local storage to be grouped and mirrored with the other nodes and physical sites, and then on top of that backups of the entire system.

or you could just stick to backups on a usb stick or even 2 sticks.

I personally am implementing a ubuntu nas with
- zfs-fuse in a raidz1 setup (similar to raid5)
- samba
- ssh
for my home data storage + protection. I'll probably add a script to copy my irreplaceable files to another hdd as an extra layer of protection for those files.

PS.

RAID can be handled by either hardware or software in linux. Either is fine. Some of the linux people here at work prefer linux software raid over cheap fake raid provided by most motherboards.

I see. When it comes to add another disk, which one is simpler? linux software raid or the one provided by the motherboard?

Thanks again

JoshyJ · 11-24-2010, 02:35 AM

Depending on how critical the system is, would determine which of these options you would pick.

# using raid
# using raid + backups
# using raid + backups + off-site backups

I also believe hardware raid is better but that is if your motherboard supports it.

johnsfine · 11-24-2010, 07:48 AM

You didn't say what distribution you plan to use. I have set up Samba servers with software RAID on Centos and both the software RAID and the Samba were enough easier to setup in Centos vs. other distributions that Centos would be my recommendation for what you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenpoise

I would love to have a Domain Controller no DHCP

I have no clue how to setup a Windows Domain Controller on Centos or other Linux system. But if you find out how to do that, I'm confident that it would be easy to not include the DHCP service.

Quote:

I need virtual to run a software off from it.

I don't know what you mean.

Quote:

2. Should I run virtual server headless? so I dont install any gui?

I have always attached a CRT while setting up Centos and only removed it once the Centos system was fully functional.

I have always included full X support in Centos to I can use GUI utilities when managing the system remotely via VNC or other remote X methods.

I'm sure you can install and manage Centos without GUI. But I don't know any details.

Quote:

is raid handled by the Bios or do I have to do something in linux

When I have set up BIOS level RAID and then tried to install Centos, it has always automatically and unconditionally set up fake RAID support for compatibility with what the BIOS had set up. Even if I disable the BIOS RAID, the fact that it was once enabled was enough to make Centos unconditionally set up compatible fake RAID.

I really dislike fake RAID (Linux software RAID set up on a full drive level for compatibility with the corresponding Windows fake RAID). If you don't need compatibility with Windows fake RAID (such as for dual boot) you shouldn't use it.

Linux software RAID on a partition level is cleaner and more flexible and very simple to set up in Centos (as long as Centos doesn't detect the previously set up fake RAID).

When removing fake RAID, I go to the extreme of booting a Mepis liveCD (which fails to recognize the fake RAID) so I can wipe the beginning of each drive (destroying the indication of fake RAID) so the Centos installer will see two independent drives on which partition level software RAID can be setup easily.

greenpoise · 11-24-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine

You didn't say what distribution you plan to use. I have set up Samba servers with software RAID on Centos and both the software RAID and the Samba were enough easier to setup in Centos vs. other distributions that Centos would be my recommendation for what you want.

I have no clue how to setup a Windows Domain Controller on Centos or other Linux system. But if you find out how to do that, I'm confident that it would be easy to not include the DHCP service.

I don't know what you mean.

I have always attached a CRT while setting up Centos and only removed it once the Centos system was fully functional.

I have always included full X support in Centos to I can use GUI utilities when managing the system remotely via VNC or other remote X methods.

I'm sure you can install and manage Centos without GUI. But I don't know any details.

When I have set up BIOS level RAID and then tried to install Centos, it has always automatically and unconditionally set up fake RAID support for compatibility with what the BIOS had set up. Even if I disable the BIOS RAID, the fact that it was once enabled was enough to make Centos unconditionally set up compatible fake RAID.

I really dislike fake RAID (Linux software RAID set up on a full drive level for compatibility with the corresponding Windows fake RAID). If you don't need compatibility with Windows fake RAID (such as for dual boot) you shouldn't use it.

Linux software RAID on a partition level is cleaner and more flexible and very simple to set up in Centos (as long as Centos doesn't detect the previously set up fake RAID).

When removing fake RAID, I go to the extreme of booting a Mepis liveCD (which fails to recognize the fake RAID) so I can wipe the beginning of each drive (destroying the indication of fake RAID) so the Centos installer will see two independent drives on which partition level software RAID can be setup easily.

wow. Thats alot to digest before I begin to tackle the assignment but great insight. I appreciate it. I still have not chosen which distro I will be using. Thanks again!

dan

cadet_concept · 11-24-2010, 05:47 PM

Another option:

I often configure servers to have a "GUI console" during build, but when they are operational and have "settled down" I disable console GUI by editing /etc/inittab and changing the default runlevel from "5" (GUI) to "3" (no GUI). On the next boot, no GUI. Thus, you have the full GUI environment you can run remotely via X11, if needed.

Re: RAID1 or "disk mirroring"

Don't think of it as a form of backup, it's just trying to improve the availability of disk storage in case a drive fails. RAID1 does no good if a critical file is deleted and needs recovery, or if the server is destroyed by a fire... that's what local backups and offsite backups are for, respectively.

Another aspect of RAID: Software RAID will be portable in the event you would need to take drives and move them from one server to another; controller-based hardware RAID could mean incompatibility if you move drives from one server to another and the RAID controller vendors or chipsets are different.

Cadet_Concept

beowulfnode · 11-25-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenpoise

Just looking for the best/most reliable setup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stress_junkie

Forget about RAID. It is also a pain. High maintenance. One more thing that can break.

For me the question of raid or no raid is simple and comes down to: without some form of raid, whenever a disk fails, your system will be unavailable for normal services while backups are restored, and your data will only be as up-to-date as how recently you made a backup. With raid you have a layer of protection against that situation, so live with the added complexity, it's not that bad. Note your disks will fail, eventually.

I can tell you now though, that replacing a drive in a raid array is MUCH simpler, quicker and easier than restoring from backups. Still make backups though, I've had a system where 3/5 drives in a system failed simultaneously, users deleting stuff they shouldn't, programs deleting stuff they shouldn't, etc, etc.

greenpoise · 11-28-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowulfnode

For me the question of raid or no raid is simple and comes down to: without some form of raid, whenever a disk fails, your system will be unavailable for normal services while backups are restored, and your data will only be as up-to-date as how recently you made a backup. With raid you have a layer of protection against that situation, so live with the added complexity, it's not that bad. Note your disks will fail, eventually.

I can tell you now though, that replacing a drive in a raid array is MUCH simpler, quicker and easier than restoring from backups. Still make backups though, I've had a system where 3/5 drives in a system failed simultaneously, users deleting stuff they shouldn't, programs deleting stuff they shouldn't, etc, etc.

For the moment I have to agree with both! stress junkie makes a good point to the fact that simpler is better. No doubt. I began tackling my server task and Raid is a hassle to setup. That is where the simple is better thing works. If it was a server for my home/personal use or even MY own business, I think I would have used stress junkie approach, no raid at all!!!! but after alot of thought and the use of the server, for a business not my business, I think I am going to sweat it out and go for Raid 1 just in case failure measures.

Thanks for the help!

stress_junkie · 11-28-2010, 12:56 PM

Hopefully someone will check the RAID status from time to time. If a RAID array goes into degraded mode due to a disk failure and nobody checks it then it will keep working until the other disk fails. Then you have the same situation as though no RAID was present. The server is down or at least the data on that RAID array is unavailable until the hardware is replaced.

I have a new client who asked me to install a new RAID disk set, which I did. He is running Windows Server 2000. When I opened the box I found that his existing disks were in a RAID configuration. He didn't know that. Luckily the disks were okay. But my point is that he didn't know that he needs to check the RAID status so that if a disk breaks he could choose the time to perform the repair. I showed him how to check the RAID status (because he is too cheap to pay me to come by once a month).

beowulfnode · 11-28-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenpoise

I think I am going to sweat it out and go for Raid 1 just in case failure measures.

Seriously RAID is not that hard, particularly RAID 1.

There is lots of documentation and youtube videos instructing how to do it on almost any system. Linux software raid is quite mature and is getting easier and easier to use and maintain. Have a look in to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mdadm tool. It is also a lot more flexible in terms of modifying your raid than many other raid systems.

greenpoise · 12-08-2010, 12:56 PM

An update on this:

I have had my server up and running for about two weeks now. Adding and testing so far. I have it set up with Raid 1, as beowulfnode, it was not that hard, thanks for the support on that.
Besides the administration basic services(IPtables, ssh server, etc etc), it has a Samba domain controller and kvm virtualization in which I plan to run Windows OS for a retail management system. I think I took longer testing different distros than what it has taken me to set up everything. I tried CentOS, Ubuntu Server, ClearOS and some other one. Ended up going against the odds with Arch Linux and webmin to administer it. I am a serious Slackware fan but bad package management made me go with Arch Linux which has been my laptop distro as well... VIrtualization is new for me so that is going to be a challenge. Thanks for the help and comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated.