[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:35:18 +0000 "Richard Brown" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Consider a second-hand box - use dcglug.org.uk as an example if the > > customer is worried. Hosting the box costs a LOT more than the box > > itself. Who will be hosting this server? Who pays the bill? Do you > > really need a real server of your own? Has the customer considered > > shared hosting, virtual servers and other existing online arrangements? > > All manner of hosting can be arranged online, from simple webhosts to > > hosting your own box in their racks. Try positive-internet, RackSpace > > and any number of others. > Ok - thanks Neil - I'll dump the web server idea. I have my own hosted > server but the client was thinking he could save costs! I'll talk him > out of it. Hosting is your biggest single cost. If you don't need the server to be visible from the internet, it reduces the costs dramatically. > > I doubt you'll find anyone seriously considering any distribution other > > than Debian for servers. The only question is whether to use stable or > > testing and this close to the Etch release, it doesn't matter that > > much. There are pre-release images available for Etch and by the time > > you actually install this server, Etch may finally have been released > > anyway. > Ok - Debian it is. Thanks. See Alex's reply - I was being all sweeping and over-generalising in that paragraph. :-) > > What Simon and I did was connect the server to a simple CRT monitor for > > the time required for the installation, then configure via ssh until it > > was ready to have the internet connection connected - a separate box > > does the firewalling. > > > > You should do something similar: divide the tasks so that this server > > does not have to do the firewall itself. > Ok - does the above mean a huge learning curve or something I can get > going on please? It all depends on whether this box is now going to be a web server or not. If the box is not going to be visible from the internet (i.e. it's not running an internet site or other internet services like FTP or SSH) then the firewall box becomes unnecessary. You simply need to protect the LAN itself just as you would normally, with some kind of "burn-everything" firewall on your ADSL router - just as you would at home. That provides internet access (i.e. browsing) without internet services (i.e. hosting). Hosting is a complex area and firewalls / DNS for an internet visible machine can be a steep learning curve. You really ought to understand firewalls, DNS and other related topics before trying to configure an internet visible machine - otherwise you risk making basic errors that will get the box compromised. As often said, security is a process and that process requires ongoing maintenance. > > Sounds like a trivial workload for any server even remotely recent. > > £2,500 sounds like complete overkill for such trivial amounts of work. > > When you say 'support' - do you mean thin-client type support? That's > > more intensive because of the amount of data being moved around the > > LAN. Ordinary sharing of home directories, a printer or two and a web > > proxy does no, IMHO, require a £2,500 server. £500 - £1,000 maybe. > What spec then? Obviously not a Xeon chip at this price! Need more info on what kind of workload is involved but basic file sharing, email etc. should not require more than an average PentiumII with lots of RAM, IMHO. Never skimp on the RAM to squeeze a faster processor into the budget. Such machines are often 'lying around' various Windows-based offices because they are "too slow" to run recent versions of Windows, but you're not running Windows on them, you're not even going to be running a GUI, so these are ideal. Such machines can be available free if you ask nicely - it saves them gathering dust in the sysadmin's office. Add lots of RAM, add lots of disc space, plug in the network cable, install Debian or Slackware or RHEL whatever - job done. This machine isn't going to be running all the X stuff, it'll be idle most of the time. You just need it to move data around, not do complex graphics calculations. There isn't much "processing" involved in common server tasks unless you are rendering animations etc. It's more about data-throughput rates which generally means keeping as much data as you can in a cache in RAM so that you read from disc less often. Why do you think you need a Xeon chip? Just what is this machine going to be required to do that is so computation-intensive? A file server is principally about I/O - the devices are the bottleneck, not the processor. Don't listen to the marketing hype, decide what you actually need and disregard any assumptions based on Windows because you won't be running a GUI on this box. A complete GNU/Linux install will only be a few gigabyte - a fraction of the amount of code required for Windows. Less code = less work and less bugs. > > If you have a rack and a room to put it, look into getting a rack > > server. It's easier to use a rack server in a rack than to use a > > desktop tower in a rack. > > > We don't have a rack - would it be better to get a tower or a rack > considering the need for: > File server > Firewall - do we need this with just a file server No. You only need a firewall box is you are providing internet services, otherwise use the firewall that comes with the router for your normal internet connection. > UPS > Switch > Backup device If you want to use a rack, you will need a server room to cope with the noise. Besides, a rack with just a file server in it is going to look quite bare. (i.e. waste of money). Don't even consider putting a rack in a "normal room" where other people would have to work. It's sounding more and more like all you actually need is a cheap (quiet) desktop box / tower with more RAM and lots of storage. You could end up doing this for £500 instead of £2,500! > I was considering something like this: > <http://www.nasdatastorage.co.uk/productsinfrantreadynasnv.htm> Do you really need that much storage? Do you need all the hot-swapping support? I know it looks cool but it sounds like you (and the customer) need to talk to someone like Alex, Neil S. or Simon and work out what hardware is actually necessary and what is just overkill. The more you buy, the more there is to go wrong. > What do you think? Or even maybe a Mac Mini or tower. I know Mac > systems much better. Then stick with a mac platform - although a new mac box is closer to a intel box nowadays and there are a LOT more "redundant" x86 boxes out there than mac. Why buy new when you can recycle a couple of machines that other people have foolishly classified as "useless" just because the box cannot install the latest bloatware from Microsoft? Microsoft are always pushing for higher and higher hardware requirements - Vista is a case in point - but the whole point of free software is that you can optimise it to run on any hardware. Removing (or simply not installing) stuff you don't use suddenly makes it easy to use hardware that others have discarded. Don't fall into the Microsoft/Intel hardware-update cycle - it's a very expensive trap. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpaxoZDivBPR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html