[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Hi Neil On 13/01/07, Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:20:03 +0000 > "Richard Brown" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Firstly, servers. The customer is currently disappointed with Dell and > > > so wants to look elsewhere. He is looking to spend around £2500 which > > > includes a rack on a rack mounted server. I obviously want to get the > > > best spec for him and the best equipment. What would you recommend > > > please? > > 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. > > The box that runs the dcglug.org.uk site (and many others) cost £120. > > > > Secondly, distros. What would be the best to get please? > > 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. > > > I am looking > > > for something that I can administer and learn as I go along. He wants > > > raid - which one would be best please? I have been recommended CentOS. > > > I would like to be able to manage the whole through a gui at first. > > You should not install a GUI on an internet server. You can use webmin > to configure the box over a local connection but make sure that is > secure (or removed) before connecting the server to the internet. This > isn't Windows - forget all the GUI stuff, don't even install it. > > 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? > > > > The server will support 5 clients but increasing to 10. It needs to be > > > configured to serve files and possibly web. > > 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! > > I suspect Neil S. has setup a variety of servers with similar or higher > workloads - I'm guessing each one cost a lot less than £2,500. > Remember, there are no licences to pay here - it sounds like your > customer has been duped into thinking he needs a mega-spec box for > mini-spec workloads. > > £2,500 would be enough to buy, install and configure *three* capable > rack servers! > > > Add to that - is it better to get a rack mounted monitor or dump one > > on top of the cabinet please? > > Rack units are hellishly noisy - you need to have a separate room with > some degree of sound proofing. (Remember, you need a firewall box as > well as the server, possibly doubling the noise. The firewall box can > be very basic and very low spec.) > > Desktop towers always take up more room per device than a rack mount > and you then need to ensure you have a UPS and trail cables around the > place to the firewall box etc. Having a rack just puts the UPS, the > firewall and the server(s) close together. > > 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 UPS Switch Backup device I was considering something like this: <http://www.nasdatastorage.co.uk/productsinfrantreadynasnv.htm> What do you think? Or even maybe a Mac Mini or tower. I know Mac systems much better. Many thanks. -- Rich http://www.cregy.co.uk Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Romans 12 v 1 -- 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