[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tuesday 11 Nov 2008, Rob Beard wrote: > Richard Brown wrote: > > Hi Guys > > > > I have been contacted by a local company that are interested in moving > > to a network of Linux managed computers and servers. This is getting > > beyond my knowledge base but the company are willing to allow me to > > expand my knowledge and learn as I build, and they will in fact pay me > > to do it as well! > > That's good. Bargain! --snip-- > need for virtualisation. The problem is, if you're using existing > machines, you won't be able to virtualise the copies of Windows legally > unless they're retail boxed versions. Microsoft would consider moving a > Windows installation from a real machine to a Virtual Machine to be a > complete new 'computer' which would need a new licence. Not so fast. I did this with several XP workstations: installed Windows using the OEM CD that came with the Dell PC into a new vmware image running under vmware player on i686 Linux. It installed and activated without incident and worked fine. Whether Microsoft considers that a completely different computer or not I don't know, but the XP activation software was OK with it. In fact, we found that we could then run the very same virtual image on other workstations at the same time, but I didn't tell you that ;-) > Is this client software required on multiple machines? > > Maybe you could get away with one or two machines dual booting with Linux? Have you searched http://appdb.winehq.org/ ? I see that someone had a fair success running Sage Accounts Production Advanced Version 7.0.47.0 on Wine two years ago, and Wine is much improved since then. You won't be entirely sure without testing it for yourself, but I think your odds are good. > > What hardware would you go for? - For a file server - a nas box or > > purpose built system, for a server to run the client management > > programme/sage etc. And the pcs themselves. > > I'd always go for a purpose built system. Yes it's a little more > expensive but you could build a server using off the shelf parts. If a > NAS dies chances are you'd have to send the thing back. If a server > with standard parts dies then you can go down to PC World and buy > replacement components in most cases (unless you go for something like a > Dell PC which standard components may not physically fit). I agree, but don't build from scratch unless you're knowledgeable enough. Consider, say, some off the shelf Dell server hardware. I've always been happy running Debian on various PowerEdge boxes. Dell have Linux support forums (though I haven't needed them). To save some cash, take a look at http://www.europc.co.uk where you can get refurbished Dell hardware at great prices. I got my current workstation from there, now running Kubuntu 8.10 nicely. Note that they often _don't_ include Windows, which it a real selling point for me ;-) > If the server is only serving to say about 8 to 10 clients then a > standard Athkon X2 / Core 2 Duo with a gig of ram and a couple of hard > drives in a raid array (Linux Software Raid or REAL HARDWARE RAID, none > of this SoftRaid on cheap motherboards) will probably do the job. > Components and memory are dirt cheap now with a gig of ram around the > £10 to £20 mark, hard drives at reasonable sizes around £35 (for say > 250GB) and dual core CPU's and motherboards are under £100. For comparison from EuroPC: I can see a Dell PowerEdge 840 Entry Level Tower Server, Xeon 3040 1.86GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, DVD, Dell Refurbished for £410 including VAT. Be sure to at least run a RAID mirror -- oh, the peace of mind that brings :-) If the budget permits, consider getting _two_ server boxes. Use one to learn what you're doing, the other for live use. Then you have some redundancy if you get a hardware failure, you can experiment safely, and eventually when you're comfortable with it all, you can distribute the services onto both boxes. These days I can't keep up with the nuances of all the different CPUs. I'd just pick a fast Xeon that fits the budget. Use Wikipedia for CPU comparison tables. For your purposes the disk performance may well be more important. Consider RAID5 on SAS drives. > For the PCs themselves, personally I'd avoid NVidia with the proprietary > drivers. I'm a fan of AMD so I'd recommend the Athlon X2 CPU's although > performance wise the Intel Core 2 Duo does have a lead over AMD at the > moment. Of all the various GPU chipsets I've run Linux on, NVidia's are the ones I have had the _least_ grief with, especially these days. So I have to differ with Rob here: I would go out of my way to get NVidia cards, grit my teeth, install the closed source drivers and be happy that it just worked. That said, you'd probably be fine with ATI too. Good luck, Steve -- blog: http://ste.mooco.ws PGP:ED407E68
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 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