Ubuntu machine as server?

[Bogie]

Frankly, I'm thinking that it'd be a bit more reliable to just use a real box, running multiple drives, for my business server... Will I run into any issues if I load linix on it instead of some version of Windoze?
 

[mtnbkr]

What are you going to use it for?  What services will run on the box?  Hardware aside, Ubuntu makes a nice server.  We have serveral linux servers at work (along with Sun, Windows, etc).  My home server runs Ubuntu. 

I would get a real server to run it own, something with a bit more reliability than PC hardware. 

Chris

[lee n. field]

Will I run into any issues if I load linix on it instead of some version of Windoze?
 

Setting up RAID in Linux takes a bit to figure out. 

What exactly sort of server to you want this to be?  Simple file server, domain controller, what?

[mtnbkr]

FWIW, if you're going to run Windows services, you can replicate most of them with SAMBA, but you're better off doing it with Windows if you have the license already.  SAMBA works, but is painful to implement correctly.

If you're doing stuff like DNS, HTTP, Mail, etc, then Ubuntu will do the job.

Chris

[roo_ster]

FWIW, if you're going to run Windows services, you can replicate most of them with SAMBA, but you're better off doing it with Windows if you have the license already.  SAMBA works, but is painful to implement correctly.

If you're doing stuff like DNS, HTTP, Mail, etc, then Ubuntu will do the job.

Chris

I set up a LAN with WIn & Lin boxes and used Samba extensively, to include domain logons, print services, file shares, WINS, etc.

I thought it was complete awesome.

Just make sure you have good documentation from several sources.

[mtnbkr]

I use SAMBA to run file/print on my home network, but not Domain logins.  I admit, SAMBA would probably be easier with a Domain auth model, but doing it with local accounts is painfully difficult.  I get it working, but it took some trial and error, lots of error.

That said, if I had a Windows network (and servers to match), I'm not sure why I'd bother with SAMBA for domain logons, print services, file shares, WINS.  That sort of thing is pretty painless with Windows.

However, if I didn't already have the Windows server, then using SAMBA makes more sense.

Chris

[go_bang]

I've been running Ubuntu Server on an old HP VL7 for some time now.  I have it set up as a file server.  I'm using the 6.4GB drive that came with it as the boot drive an installed a cheap PCI SATA adapter and a 500GB drive for the file shares.  Like was previously said, SAMBA is a pain to set up.  Especially if you need something more granular than the GUI version of Ubuntu can give you.  However, there is lots of help to be found online.  Often someone somewhere has posted a copy of their smb.conf file that is written to do what you want, so you can use theirs as a template for yours.

All that aside, what kind of hardware and environment are you setting a server up for? 

[roo_ster]

I specifically did not want to run any Windows server OSes due to very poor Win Server IT support.  The linux/unix support was generally much better, so I maximized the *ix & minimized the *doze.

I configured mine 100% with a text editor, no GUI.  I had good documentation from several sources at hand as well as several .conf file examples.

[AJ Dual]

Setting up RAID in Linux takes a bit to figure out. 

Not always. Many RAID controlers have nice firmware utilites. In fact I've got a dead Dell rackmount that was RAID0. They were trying to be cheap and eek a bit more performance out of it, hoping RAID0 would be a tad faster. Well, it performed something yesterday and took a crap, and the boot phys. drive died. And this Dell Powerline is a few years old. I would hope any newer servers would not need to get the OS and software in first to do RAID setup. 

I just slapped two new drives in it. (SCSI is EXPENSIVE!  Bossman feels gypped, wishes it were SATA) and I promoted the array to RAID5, all without any software or an OS.

It just depends on how friendly the RAID controler is.

[go_bang]

If you want to run RAID, doing it with a good controller is the only way to go.  Let the hardware handle everything and present it to the OS as one big disk.

[AJ Dual]

If you want to run RAID, doing it with a good controller is the only way to go.  Let the hardware handle everything and present it to the OS as one big disk.

Amen...

And a small-biz server that comes with one still costs less than a tricked-out gamer PC. 

[lee n. field]

It just depends on how friendly the RAID controler is.

Of definitely.   I set up a server a couple years ago, on an Intel server board with basic SATA raid.  Turns out, it's the kind of RAID that's more software than hardware.  Ended up disabling that and setting up Linux software raid with mdadm.  Do it at the partitioning stage during install, and it's pretty straightforward.  Learning what to do, when, took most of a weekend.

did not want to run any Windows server OSes due to very poor Win Server IT support.

Depends on where you get it.  If you're in deep enough water to need it, M$' server support is top notch, and will fix the problem.  Worth the $250 per incident.

[Gewehr98]

What are you trying to accomplish, Bogie?

I just bought another Quantum SnapServer for pennies on the dollar.  I'm setting this one up as an FTP/Webserver through my Linksys WRT-54G router.

[Bogie]

Just basically need to store a buttload of large files...

[Gewehr98]

Hmmm....

You may be overthinking things a tad.

Small, efficient NAS boxes don't need much setting up, and handle fileserving duties just fine.

I'm partial to the older Snap Server 1100 series (I have 4 of 'em) but there are oodles of other NAS (Ethernet) boxes out there for dirt cheap, and very configurable with respect to capacity - some even accommodate 2-4 hard drives, with RAID, etc.  I'm watching and bidding on a couple right now in EvilBay.  The one I've set an Esnipe bid on is a cute little D-Link model that's both tiny and 802.11g WiFi capable.  It should go really cheap because it's missing the internal hard drive, but I've got spares sitting in a pile here that would work perfectly.

Go take a look.  They're small, inobtrusive, lower wattage, easier to work with, and require no monitor, mouse, or keyboard to set up like a dedicated server. 

[KD5NRH]

Small, efficient NAS boxes don't need much setting up, and handle fileserving duties just fine.

OTOH, when one already has an outdated machine that can handle several drives, stuffing them in at $89 per terabyte, plus having the ability to do a few other minor tasks with negligible CPU load has it's attractions.

[go_bang]

Here's another idea for turning an old PC into a file server:

http://www.freenas.org/

Especially for one that doesn't have enough horsepower to run a Linux GUI.

[RevDisk]

Frankly, I'm thinking that it'd be a bit more reliable to just use a real box, running multiple drives, for my business server... Will I run into any issues if I load linix on it instead of some version of Windoze?

Ubuntu will probably do you fine.  There's RHEL if you want to go with a support infrastructure.