Server

[Tovis]

Anybody in here have a server where they currently run FTP and Hosting in house?

I'm thinking about installing Fedora 15. What do you all run? I assume either Red Hat or a Windows Server.

[Fred Weiss]

We run CENTOS 5.6 x86_64 bit. I'm told it is identical to Red Hat. No experience with Fedora.

[Tovis]

Have you been happy with it? Did you set it up?

[qmr55]

Fedora is basically Red Hat. I run Fedora on my laptop with a dual boot of that and Win 7. I don't use it as a server though.

[Fred Weiss]

Have you been happy with it? Did you set it up?

As much as one can be happy with any OS. We use a contractor to manage our server. I just tell them what I need and they do it. They've told me they have no preference so long as i get cPanel added to the software. I mess around in cPanel and phpMyAdmin some and am scared to death to do anything at the root level. As a result I really can't say much more than to get WHM and cPanel with whatever you do.

[Tovis]

Fedora is basically Red Hat. I run Fedora on my laptop with a dual boot of that and Win 7. I don't use it as a server though.

What version do you run? Do you like it? Is it pretty much an unsupported version of redhat?

[njshorts]

We use a Debian 6 box in house, rsync'ed to a CentOS 5.5 box in the datacenter, both pieces of equipment i own and manage.

FYI:
CentOS is a free re-package of Red Hat. Stable, secure, great- I use it for a lot of servers. Red Hat's cost isn't really worth it, and Fedora is Red Hat's testing bed... bleeding edge packages and the like- steer clear for a server.

Debian is also free, as is Ubuntu (a Debian fork).

The way we're set up, is the local Debian server hosts SAMBA services so that all files are stored off of the workstations, ProFTP for FTP services, a Hamachi VPN for remote use and httpd/php/mysql for internal applications. Primary drive is rsync'ed to a second storage drive every hour. Nightly, all data is rsync'ed to a 2u with 4 drives in RAID10 in the datacenter, running CentOS 5.5. Both boxes are 64 bit capable, and while 64 bit has become much more stable... I'm stuck on i386/686 and use the SMB/PAE kernel for CentOS, bigmem-i686 for Debian.

If you want a bit of help/have questions, feel free to message me.

[Tovis]

We use a Debian 6 box in house, rsync'ed to a CentOS 5.5 box in the datacenter, both pieces of equipment i own and manage.

FYI:
CentOS is a free re-package of Red Hat. Stable, secure, great- I use it for a lot of servers. Red Hat's cost isn't really worth it, and Fedora is Red Hat's testing bed... bleeding edge packages and the like- steer clear for a server.

Debian is also free, as is Ubuntu (a Debian fork).

The way we're set up, is the local Debian server hosts SAMBA services so that all files are stored off of the workstations, ProFTP for FTP services, a Hamachi VPN for remote use and httpd/php/mysql for internal applications. Primary drive is rsync'ed to a second storage drive every hour. Nightly, all data is rsync'ed to a 2u with 4 drives in RAID10 in the datacenter, running CentOS 5.5. Both boxes are 64 bit capable, and while 64 bit has become much more stable... I'm stuck on i386/686 and use the SMB/PAE kernel for CentOS, bigmem-i686 for Debian.

If you want a bit of help/have questions, feel free to message me.

So Fedora if Fedora is a testing ground, are earlier versions more stable?

Between Debian, Ubantu and CentOS which do you prefer?

-CentOS

[njshorts]

Fedora isn't a server platform, no matter how old it is (unless you go back to unsupported versions, like fc1-3)

I use a lot of different distros, and I consult for a webhosting company with over 500 servers- mix of CentOS (85% centos), Red Hat, Debian, SuSE and Debian...

For simplicity, I'd use a Debian box for your local office... I wouldn't advise hosting your own website (whm/cpanel is an added cost, plus security issues, outages, etc... we pay $4/mo for hosting at fourbucks.net, worth every penny).

A Debian box with SAMBA/ProFTP can be set up in 20-30 minutes on nearly any hardware. If you have a writable cd and a pentium 3 or newer with 768 MB ram (plus whatever storage you want to use), you can have a quick and stable Debian box... installed and running within an hour. You can do the same with CentOS as well, configuration and maintenance is a bit easier with the debian packages.

(ya know, i was just talking to another s101 member about doing sign shop it consulting... maybe i should package this as a service :-P)

[qmr55]

What version do you run? Do you like it? Is it pretty much an unsupported version of redhat?

I'm on Release 14 which is Laughlin.

Linux Kernal 2.6.35.6-45.fc-14 (Which if I'm correct is a bit older maybe 6-8 months)

And GNOME 2.32.0

I like it and its very stable. Few bugs but I've fixed most of them over the year or so I've been running it.

[TheJaspMan]

We have a Fedora 9 server that has an average uptime of 3-5 months. We host our own web, FTP, email and storage. I have no complaints at all.

[signswi]

Prefer either Ubuntu or CentOS, though I prefer virtualized servers to actually co-locing a box.

http://vps.net/product/cloud-servers/

[Tovis]

whm/cpanel is a necessity then, what we want to do is set up FTP where customers upload to our server, do email in house since the number of accounts with our current system is limited and possibly do web hosting internally.

Is the cost significant enough where it is better to just do it externally?

[Tovis]

We have a Fedora 9 server that has an average uptime of 3-5 months. We host our own web, FTP, email and storage. I have no complaints at all.

By average uptime of 3-5 months, do you mean that it crashes that often or you have to restart it that often?

I'd love to email with you email@kiwisunphoto.com

Do you have extra costs besides the cost of the server machine to install it on, and the dedicated IP you have running to it?

[Fred Weiss]

This is a current special (http://www.netdepot.rsvp1.com/lp/New-Intel-Xeon-for-275?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=5620_275&utm_content=Dedicated-5620-compare-275&utm_campaign=Email_Database_DedicatedServers-5620-Compare-275_090611) from the server provider we lease from. Adding cPanel/WHM to it, monitoring/management (http://www.platinumservermanagement.com/), and other goodies would probably put it in the $350 to $400 a month range. Whether that seems reasonable to you or not is subjective but it's a very good solution IMHO.

[Tovis]

This is a current special (http://www.netdepot.rsvp1.com/lp/New-Intel-Xeon-for-275?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=5620_275&utm_content=Dedicated-5620-compare-275&utm_campaign=Email_Database_DedicatedServers-5620-Compare-275_090611) from the server provider we lease from. Adding cPanel/WHM to it, monitoring/management (http://www.platinumservermanagement.com/), and other goodies would probably put it in the $350 to $400 a month range. Whether that seems reasonable to you or not is subjective but it's a very good solution IMHO.

Is that for hosting a single website domain, and ftp for that domain, and emails for that domain or is that for multiple domains.

Seems kinda high...

[Fred Weiss]

Is that for hosting a single website domain, and ftp for that domain, and emails for that domain or is that for multiple domains.

Seems kinda high...

It is for a dedicated server and a high speed connection to the internet along with maintenance and repairs for the server. Unlike a hosted solution, you pretty much set all your own rules. You are your own host. It includes 5 dedicated IPs and is a powerful enough server to go into the hosting business. The OS of the server provides unlimited FTP accounts, email, databases and lots of other things you aren't used to getting from a hosted solution.

The cost is low for a dedicated server from a quality provider and any comparison to a hosted solution is difficult. I would change to it myself except I don't want to go through the aggravation of changing to a new server at this point in time. We pay about that amount for a much weaker server from the same company.

[signswi]

whm/cpanel is a necessity then, what we want to do is set up FTP where customers upload to our server, do email in house since the number of accounts with our current system is limited and possibly do web hosting internally.

Is the cost significant enough where it is better to just do it externally?

Virtualized servers are virtual servers, you can put whatever you want on them. It's just like having a hardware server...without the hardware. The advantages are you're in control of your entire server environment without having to worry about hardware and you can scale on demand.

Fred I hope that's for more than just signs101...vBulletin is coded like crap but it's not THAT crap ;P.

[Fred Weiss]

Fred I hope that's for more than just signs101...vBulletin is coded like crap but it's not THAT crap ;P.

No. I have my other sites on the same server. Plus we run five other applications on Signs 101 in addition to vBulletin. Having our own server allows us certain types of access on doesn't get on a hosted account which is important for maintenance and optimization.

[signswi]

You'd have all the same options and access on a VPS, just saying. It's worth price comparing. Check your loads and see what equiv. load virtualized servers would cost. Do you use a CDN at all?

[Fred Weiss]

You'd have all the same options and access on a VPS, just saying. It's worth price comparing. Check your loads and see what equiv. load virtualized servers would cost.

When I first read about virtual servers, I contacted our server management contractors for their opinion. They handle both virtual servers and traditional dedicated servers. Their opinion was that the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages. Since they have delivered me AAA service and advice for more than five years now, I ended my interest in virtual servers for my needs.

I'm not informed enough to debate it with you and what you say may or may not have merit. All I know is when my primary advisors on such topics gives a strong thumbs down to something, I am not going to waste my time considering it.

[qmr55]

When I first read about virtual servers, I contacted our server management contractors for their opinion. They handle both virtual servers and traditional dedicated servers. Their opinion was that the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages. Since they have delivered me AAA service and advice for more than five years now, I ended my interest in virtual servers for my needs.

I'm not informed enough to debate it with you and what you say may or may not have merit. All I know is when my primary advisors on such topics gives a strong thumbs down to something, I am not going to waste my time considering it.

Hey Fred do you happen to have a list or a comparisons sheet on how they came to this conclusion? Just for my own personal knowledge I'd like to see what they had to say!

[signswi]

It's possible from looking at their page they aren't set up to run VPS well so they sold you hardware (which has higher markup). That's devil's advocate but it's common. Running a VPS service takes a big, extremely technical company which is why there are only a dozen or so that do it well (that will sell to the little guy anyway). Assembling and reselling a co-located hardware server is child's play compared to operating a VPS service.

A CDN service ( maxcdn.com (http://maxcdn.com) as an example) would probably eliminate a huge chunk of your server load and speed up visitor experience, something also worth looking into and to be aware of.

There's also static precaching, both server side and externally through a service like cloudflare.com (http://cloudflare.com) (check out the free package...).

It's great that you're happy (relationship is as important as tech specs, as you well know) I'm just throwing some things out there that are worth consideration for anyone who is entering the hosting arena.

[Fred Weiss]

Hey Fred do you happen to have a list or a comparisons sheet on how they came to this conclusion? Just for my own personal knowledge I'd like to see what they had to say!

No but you might want to contact them directly.

[Fred Weiss]

It's possible from looking at their page they aren't set up to run VPS well so they sold you hardware (which has higher markup). That's devil's advocate but it's common. Running a VPS service takes a big, extremely technical company which is why there are only a dozen or so that do it well (that will sell to the little guy anyway). Assembling and reselling a co-located hardware server is child's play compared to operating a VPS service.

A CDN service ( maxcdn.com (http://maxcdn.com) as an example) would probably eliminate a huge chunk of your server load and speed up visitor experience, something also worth looking into and to be aware of.

There's also static precaching, both server side and externally through a service like cloudflare.com (http://cloudflare.com) (check out the free package...).

It's great that you're happy (relationship is as important as tech specs, as you well know) I'm just throwing some things out there that are worth consideration for anyone who is entering the hosting arena.

No, that's not at all the case. here's a statement from their home page:

We support any Dedicated Server, Cloud Server, or VPS running a Linux OS and CPanel.

They are in the business of monitoring and managing servers for their clients ... basically performing all the things a host would do for their customers. They do this for $29 a month and have had nothing to do at any time with who I rent my dedicated server from. Their reply to me was based on the problems and, as I recall, some security issues they have encountered while managing all three types of setups.

[signswi]

Ah, so they resell and monitor services? Makes sense, nice to have an intermediary I guess.

Like I said, great that you're happy, I'm just throwing out info for anyone who it may benefit.

[Tovis]

I think I am going to give this a try. Thanks for all of your help, let my know if any of you have advise....

http://www.howtoforge.com/perfect-server-centos-5.5-x86_64-ispconfig-3

[njshorts]

ispconfig is a pain and really isnt necessary... but if you insist.

imho, if you're just doing ftp and in-house stuff, install proftpd/LAMP... or go with webmin if you insist on a GUI. also, consider CSF- www.configserver.com... very useful firewall/LFD software.

[Tovis]

I installed it along with webmin, neat little program. I also have Samba all set up. I can view my windows computers on the network but cannot get into them because it seems to require a domain. Windows 7 doesn't seem to allow me to enter a domain. Do any of you know of a workaround or resolution.

I also made the public folder on linux public and cannot see anything on windows regarding the centos public folder.

[njshorts]

the domain would be the machines name, if you are not on a true windows domain.

are you having issues getting from the workstations to the linux box or vice-versa? in a perfect world, set up your samba users/groups and copy files from the desktops to the server, leave the server alone and shut the gui off until you need it again (runlevel 3)

[Tovis]

Well, I am able to look into windows computers, I figured out I have to start the samba server back up in webadmin after rebooting.

I still cannot see the public folder on Centos from clicking on network in windows.

[TheJaspMan]

I installed it along with webmin, neat little program. I also have Samba all set up. I can view my windows computers on the network but cannot get into them because it seems to require a domain. Windows 7 doesn't seem to allow me to enter a domain. Do any of you know of a workaround or resolution.

I also made the public folder on linux public and cannot see anything on windows regarding the centos public folder.


The Samba server acts as a windows domain server. You can access drive space on the server, but not typically access workstations from the server.

Webmin is a snap for doing stuff remotely. You can set Samba (and other system stuff) to automatically start on reboot via the bootup and shutdown commands.

[Tovis]

What do I do to make it act as a file server then so I can put and pull files off it.

Or perhaps I should just use a windows machine as a fileserver and throw a few hard drives into it and continue using outside hosting, email, and ftp.

[Tovis]

Got it running on my home machine, pretty nifty, this dyndns.org is also kind cool since I don't have a static IP at home.

Thank you all for your help, I feel I got a quick class in networking, port forwarding, subnets, gateways, dns, and ipv4.

[smdgrfx]

For ease of use, we use Windows Home Server 2008. Very easy to setup and easy to manage. Not as robust as others (cannot run programs from it), but as a file server, ftp server, and backup - it is great. And did I mention....easy to use.

[njshorts]

Got it running on my home machine, pretty nifty, this dyndns.org is also kind cool since I don't have a static IP at home.

Thank you all for your help, I feel I got a quick class in networking, port forwarding, subnets, gateways, dns, and ipv4.

please please tell me you're not sharing over the web using dyndns... very insecure. if so, use hamachi from logmein.com for a cheap/easy start until you can learn openvpn.

also, to start samba...

chkconfig smb on

as root. this will make samba start when the machine starts.

[Tovis]

No, I just used it to test things until I could get it running, they have a static ip at work to install on. I'll give those a look though if I set an ftp up long term.

[signswi]

There's seriously no reason to run an ftp anymore in the age of cheap cloud storage and ftp-like SaaS applications.