Home Server OS

[strat1219]

Not sure if this is propper place; let me know if not.

My buddy and I are moving out of the dorms and into a rental, and we are thinking we want to set up a server. Right now, we are trying to decide if we want to go with windows server 2008 (which we can get for free) or with some distro of linux's server. We are computer science students, so I think we could go with linux, but Im not sure how much more work it would be.

We are looking to hust Murmur (VOIP), store media for LAN streaming, run and automate torrents, and backup critical files.

Any input guys?

[thread]

Linux can have some hassles (but I love it).

However, if you're a computer science student, I reckon you'll gain great experience from administering a linux server.

There is stuff to be learnt on windows too, but with most of what you've mentioned I don't think you'll learn much more than you know already.

Just check there is a murmur server for linux first I guess.

If choosing linux, I like Gentoo and Arch, but there is a lot out there. Think of it like buying icecream, haha.

[jimh425]

I'd pick the programs you want to learn, and then pick the OS.

[strat1219]

Originally Posted by jimh425

I'd pick the programs you want to learn, and then pick the OS.

I dont really have any programs in mind that I want to learn; I want a server setup that is configurable yet easy to use, and am just looking for some guidance. Thats not to say I would mind learning something along the way!

[ELItheICEman]

Maybe you don't have to choose just one OS.

My server is set up to virtualize anything and everything. Currently I have FreeNAS to manage my network storage, a Linux VM for coding/compiling, and a Windows installation for various other tasks. The best part is that, should I need or want a new OS, I can install it alongside the others and spin it up whenever I want.

If this sounds interesting, check out ESXi. It's the virtualization environment only - the installation and management of VMs must be done remotely. Worth it though.

[strat1219]

Originally Posted by ELItheICEman

If this sounds interesting, check out ESXi. It's the virtualization environment only - the installation and management of VMs must be done remotely. Worth it though.

It does sound interesting; I am vaguely familiar with virtualization, but I wasnt sure if it was a viable option if im just running on a recycled desktop. If i recall correctly, the system has an E8400 and like 4 gigs of ram(I can grab like 16 or something with the price of ram now!). Planned on putting a cheaper RAID card in it for a software RAID 5.

Now, looking at some tutorials, it looks like it could be done with vmware underneath... It would definitely be a cool setup.

[kwiksilver]

I have all of my stuff on esxi as well.

I run Window Server 2k8 R2, Debian, Ubuntu (siri proxy), Win7, WinXP, Unraid (NAS) all on one box.

[AruisDante]

If you just want simple, all of your tasks can be done in vanilla old windows 7. WHS2008 is absolutely pointless since they removed Drive Extender, which was really the only point of WHS over regular Windows 7. Full windows server would be complete overkill for you. That's designed for much more enterprise like situations.

Linux could also likely get the job done, but obviously you're going to have to do a lot of learning. Linux is great if you want to monkey around, learn a lot, and have something that is highly customized. But if you just want something that just works, it really isn't the best choice.

[Spartacus]

I am running everything you listed on Win 7 Ultimate.
I have a murmur and vent server hosted on it,
4 -2tb drives for a file server (they are just shared through windows sharing atm)
(have 2/4 drives for a mediasonic pro external enclosure for backing up the FS in a 1-1 so all the crit stuff can be backed up)

I use the box directly so I cant use VMware to facilitate it, but I do plan on replacing it with Srvr 2008 R2 soon and using Hyper-V to create and manage a full domain, exchange server etc.

[PommieB]

Could do a multi-boot maybe from different disk drives with the OS's he wants to experiment with, tried doing it virtually, needs too much overhead for my taste, haven't tried it for 3 or 4 years may have come a long way since then.

[Scubar]

Originally Posted by strat1219

It does sound interesting; I am vaguely familiar with virtualization, but I wasnt sure if it was a viable option if im just running on a recycled desktop. If i recall correctly, the system has an E8400 and like 4 gigs of ram(I can grab like 16 or something with the price of ram now!). Planned on putting a cheaper RAID card in it for a software RAID 5.

Now, looking at some tutorials, it looks like it could be done with vmware underneath... It would definitely be a cool setup.

If you go the ESXi route you will need to buy a good RAID card. Software RAID is not supported so you will have to purcahse a good quality hardware RAID controller cost you a few hundred $

[strat1219]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback guys!

We have at least a week until we move, but I will update when we do get things set up. I think I would rather try using linux install at this point just to for the hell of it. If I am running into a lot of problems, I will just fall back to win7 if it really has no disadvantage against win7 server.

[ELItheICEman]

Originally Posted by Scubar

If you go the ESXi route you will need to buy a good RAID card. Software RAID is not supported so you will have to purcahse a good quality hardware RAID controller cost you a few hundred $

Not necessarily. For storage purposes, I use a FreeNAS VM to combine my two 4TB drives into a single 8TB NAS. Not saying that's the solution for everybody, but it's not mandatory to have a RAID card. That's all.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by ELItheICEman

Not necessarily. For storage purposes, I use a FreeNAS VM to combine my two 4TB drives into a single 8TB NAS. Not saying that's the solution for everybody, but it's not mandatory to have a RAID card. That's all.

+1 the card is only needed if he is going raid, he can keep the drives independent and just have multiple datastores as a secondary option.

Originally Posted by strat1219

Wow, thanks for all the feedback guys!

We have at least a week until we move, but I will update when we do get things set up. I think I would rather try using linux install at this point just to for the hell of it. If I am running into a lot of problems, I will just fall back to win7 if it really has no disadvantage against win7 server.

Nope, mostly advantages, especially the overhead it uses very minimal resources that you can put towards other items (I have 16 gigs so it doesn't matter that much for me)

Linux is a great experience builder, kinda confusing though if you're doing it through command prompt as it takes some getting used to the different commands, the gui is pretty straight forward though.

[strat1219]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Linux is a great experience builder, kinda confusing though if you're doing it through command prompt as it takes some getting used to the different commands, the gui is pretty straight forward though.

I was actually looking at the server version of ubuntu which would just be a command prompt unless I manually installed the GUI. I have read it is much safer than ubuntu desktop.

[AruisDante]

Yes and no. The newer releases of desktop Ubuntu are pretty stable. I run it for my graduate research simulation box and remote into it over SSH+VNC. Haven't run into too many problems.

Keep in mind that if you run the server version you're limiting yourself (by default) only to applications that can run headless. Some of the more consumer oriented applications, while they provide command-line access, really are designed around having a GUI.

[strat1219]

Originally Posted by AruisDante

Yes and no. The newer releases of desktop Ubuntu are pretty stable. I run it for my graduate research simulation box and remote into it over SSH+VNC. Haven't run into too many problems.

Keep in mind that if you run the server version you're limiting yourself (by default) only to applications that can run headless. Some of the more consumer oriented applications, while they provide command-line access, really are designed around having a GUI.

So you would recomend just using Desktop Ubuntu? I planned on doing most of the maintenance via SSH and not even having a monitor pluged into the server. I Imagine there is a remote desktop application that could be used for the GUI apps, so it would still work.

[AruisDante]

Ubuntu server doesn't have an X-Window server on it, so there is no GUI to remote desktop into. Install the window manager and you're basically back to regular Ubuntu

Unless you absolutely NEED some feature of a server OS, generally speaking it's better to stick to the consumer versions of them.

Additional Comment:

From the Ubuntu wiki:

The main difference between the two editions is the lack of a default installation of a X window environment in the server edition, although GUIs can be installed like GNOME/Unity (Ubuntu 11.04), KDE (Kubuntu 11.04), XFCE, (Xubuntu 11.04), as well as more resource-economical GUIs such as Fluxbox, Openbox and Blackbox. Kernel versions also differ. The server edition uses a screen mode character-based interface for the installation, instead of a graphical installation process. The server CD also has the option of installing Ubuntu enterprise cloud.

The other difference is that you can pay for enterprise level support, but obviously you don't want to do that

[strat1219]

So, I have Ubuntu desktop installed and have been playing with it. Trying to get DDNS working with a free host at the moment. I am digging it; super fun to get in and play around with!

Anyone have some utilities that may prove usefull that I havent thought of? I am thinking im going to use PLEX for media and run the mumble server, primarily.

[Jahova]

My Fedora home server has been running without a monitor for almost a year now. Actually, I don't even SSH or do much anything with it except copy and read files from other machines. The darn thing just keeps chuggin away.