linux or windows?

[achevchenko]

hello,
im sorta new to building web servers. i have a couple of domains and i would like to build my won web server...so i can host my websites from home...i want to start by asking what people would recomment using lynux or windows server 2003.....im gonna be running a classified php type sites and i guess i need to know everything there is to make it all work....starting from like just purchasing a depp poweredge or something.....every piece of advice is greatly appretiated
Thank You

[BillBrown]

Unless you want to get super crazy with performance down to the whatever smallest amount possible, PHP will run on both Windows and the Linux operating systems. Everyone has an opinion about which server environment is better. That being said, I would think that your decision would come down to which of those two choices you're going to be more comfortable administrating. Are you happier with the point-and-click or with typing instructions at a command prompt?

Bill

[DimaYasny]

who said linux cannot be point-and-click?

http://howtoforge.com/perfect-server-ubuntu8.04-lts

[BillBrown]

Nobody said can't be. :-) If you'd like to use the GUI, most current distributions, including (K)Ubuntu, offer a grand assortment of of GUI administration tools ranging from user management to configuring daemon runtime configuration.

To cut down on disk and resource usage however, sometimes a server's administrator will choose to not install the GUI environment, instead choosing to edit config files and such manually from a command prompt.

Bill

[JeoSaurus]

It's all about what you're comfortable with!

Linux can be point-and-click, or you can do it all at command line. I'll also say that if you're running Linux as a web server (with php/mysql/whatever) with light to medium traffic, hardware specs aren't really an issue (I mention this since you were talking about purchasing a server). I have a colocated Linux server running ~70 domains on a Pentium 3 with 512 MB of RAM :) That includes web traffic (php/perl/mysql/etc) email, ftp, irc, and shell (for trusted users) services!

Windows offers the point and click interface, true, but the way IIS works isn't that intuitive to me. But if that's what you're familiar with, I'd say go for it. For the application that it sounds like you're talking about, though, I think Linux offers more "bang for the buck".

Hope this helps!
-G

[BillBrown]

Couldn't agree more. Thanks Gromit. :-)

[michinobu_zoned]

How about performance???
As far as desktops go, Windows is top notch compared to all other OS's on the planet. But, when it comes to web-servers, does Linux or some Unix version leave Windows in its dust?

[jbennet]

Windows Server is a lot more expensive. And its web edition sucks. Go for standard edition, but like I said, it costs a lot.

[SevenL]

How about performance???
As far as desktops go, Windows is top notch compared to all other OS's on the planet. But, when it comes to web-servers, does Linux or some Unix version leave Windows in its dust?

Most Linux servers leave Windows IIS in its dust. If you need to run Windows, try using Apache instead of IIS. Apache is free, fast and typically deals with the loads better than IIS would.

The server hardware will be much cheaper for a Linux environment because it uses less RAM, CPU etc to get the same results as a more expensive server running Windows. Linux was more or less developed for being servers whereas it seems like more of an afterthought for Microsoft.

[jbennet]

Windows server 2008 is actually really really fast

[SevenL]

Really? I haven't played with Server 2008. I take it that it was written from the ground up?

[jbennet]

The networking stack was. The 64 bit edition also includes HyperV - which is like Xen is on linux.

2008s file transfer speed is significantly faster, specifically with windows vista and IIS seems to be much more scalable.

On my network file transfers between Vista SP1 and server 2008 were about 20+ times faster, making loading roaming profiles etc.... much better.

Its also much much more secure by default and has better hardware support, a nice scriptable shell akin to bash, a modular OS structure, and hot patching.

[DimaYasny]

1. hyperV is very far from Xen
2. scriptable powershell is only available on the full version, none on the core version
3. transfer speeds are the same as before, the bottleneck is as usual - bandwidth and disk access times

[jbennet]

The core version is designed for remote management hence no powershell

secondly, transfer rate is faster if client and server both support remote differential compression, which speeds up replication and profile syncs significantly

[DimaYasny]

no powershell in core is due to the impossibility of installing .net framework.

transfer rates are not faster, profile sync algorithm is improved to transfer less. these are different things.

try to transfer large files, or use ping -l for large icmp packet transfer to check for differences

[hotelaudit]

GNU/Linux vs Windows?

It's depend on your purpose with your computer. If you would like build up a stable good server from your machine GNU/Linux can be a good choice for you. If you are in an office and would like setup an OS for your employee M$ Windows is better. In fact according to the statistic of netcraft dot com the operation system of server machines in the top most cases is the GNU/Linux.

[michinobu_zoned]

Windows server 2008 is actually really really fast

You're right, I keep telling every body what's been written in my textbook, that Windows is proven to outperform everyone else in terms of throughput and response time in interactive systems.
For one, Windows implements some microkernel designs (ideal for webservers) whereas Linux is strictly monolithic (nicknamed "the Big Mess"). And, everything gets done faster with Windows than with Linux. In terms of open-source software, Linux isn't that great either, it's just much over-hyped. Solaris has also been proven to outperform Linux in terms of speed as well, and is actually POSIX-compliant - making it a UNIX system. Hell, even Windows comes closer than Linux to being a UNIX system using Interix. And, Open Solaris is open source and free so you can use it on your cheap web server without having to spend a dime!

I myself, use Linux for programming and to get away from Windows because much of the free opensource software out there doesn't run on Solaris. And, rather than scratching my head to figure out how to get it to work on Solaris (also a common problem on Linux) I just stick with a system which already works. It's not that I hate Linux or think it's a terrible system, it's just that it's over-hyped (much like those mac computers). Like, the mass populace are going to immediately cling to something, never willing to explore anything else, while all the Linux-fanatics spout their propaganda, preventing any up and coming mind which is willing to explore other options, from ever exploring anything else.

[DimaYasny]

You're right, I keep telling every body what's been written in my textbook, that Windows is proven to outperform everyone else in terms of throughput and response time in interactive systems.

examples please? windows server systems are in most cases much slower than *nix based systems, used for the same tasks on the same hardware.
even windows native smb/cifs is outperformed by properly tuned samba on linux

For one, Windows implements some microkernel designs (ideal for webservers) whereas Linux is strictly monolithic (nicknamed "the Big Mess").

and that is why apache is the most popular http server in the world?

And, everything gets done faster with Windows than with Linux.

everything? I really find it hard to believe. I am currently working on migrating several solutions between platforms, and every time a simple bash script solves a ton of work I would have to do manually in windows, I like linux more.

In terms of open-source software, Linux isn't that great either, it's just much over-hyped.

what OSS exactly aqre you talking about? because no other system has the possibility of installing hundreds of thousands OSS packages, without doing anything but a few clicks or a simple command

Solaris has also been proven to outperform Linux in terms of speed as well, and is actually POSIX-compliant - making it a UNIX system.

solaris has its own issues.

And, Open Solaris is open source and free so you can use it on your cheap web server without having to spend a dime!

can say the same about any linux distro

while all the Linux-fanatics spout their propaganda, preventing any up and coming mind which is willing to explore other options, from ever exploring anything else.

like what? OS/2? VMX? Netware?

[jbennet]

and every time a simple bash script solves a ton of work I would have to do manually in windows

Um, no. I find windows systems far far easier to manage than linux systems. Also, you can get extremely good scripting using PowerShell, WMI etc..

what OSS exactly aqre you talking about? because no other system has the possibility of installing hundreds of thousands OSS packages, without doing anything but a few clicks or a simple command

BSD, Opensolaris, ReactOS, list goes on...

solaris has its own issues.

Like what. For server appss it seems to benchmark much higher in terms of speed.

while all the Linux-fanatics spout their propaganda, preventing any up and coming mind which is willing to explore other options, from ever exploring anything else.

- like what? OS/2? VMX? Netware?

ReactOS for example.

[DimaYasny]

Um, no. I find windows systems far far easier to manage than linux systems. Also, you can get extremely good scripting using PowerShell, WMI etc..

have you used powershell or WMI? the scripts are much longer and extremely complex. nothing easy or convenient about them, especially if you're used to bash or (just to keep things in proportion) python

BSD, Opensolaris, ReactOS, list goes on...

I don't see anything MS made in that list

Like what. For server appss it seems to benchmark much higher in terms of speed.

like compatibility with other systems, hardware issues, very basic GUI, the list goes on...

ReactOS for example.

15 years in IT, and I have never seen that in production.

[jbennet]

very basic GUI

CDE?

You know that you can install install Sun Java Desktop, which is basicall Gnome, right?

15 years in IT, and I have never seen that in production.

Exactly, because it cant find any developers

[DimaYasny]

I have installed the gnome there, the amount of available applets is extremely poor

[jbennet]

Thats because they only used the ones that ship with gnome itself (slackware does the same) , no extra ones. ubuntu etc.... ship with additional ones.

[DimaYasny]

you cah have quite a few administration tools in RHEL/CentOS, and entire GUI for everything in SLES, almost everything in Debian/Ubuntu... all for free, no need to do anything too complicated

[John A]

>ReactOS for example.
ReactOS is a terrible example. It's got layers upon layers of bugs. First, you've got the ReactOS kernel which was written from scratch, then you've got the Wine layer which provides the Windows binary compatibility for its userland, and then you've got the Windows userland. While it might in the future become useful as a Windows alternative (if it ever gets out of alpha stage), it's unlikely that it will ever be used for a production server.

[jbennet]

Yeah i know if you actually read my post I was using it as an example with relation to the comment

while all the Linux-fanatics spout their propaganda, preventing any up and coming mind which is willing to explore other options, from ever exploring anything else.

i was making the point that other options like reactos get no developers because they are all involved in linux.

[John A]

i was making the point that other options like reactos get no developers because they are all involved in linux.

Or maybe they just aren't interested in an operating system that promises to offer little more than most *nix operating systems have already been offering for years.

[michinobu_zoned]

examples please? windows server systems are in most cases much slower than *nix based systems, used for the same tasks on the same hardware.
even windows native smb/cifs is outperformed by properly tuned samba on linux

I honestly can't say too much about webservers, since I have no experience with them. But, I did read that Windows exceptionally well for desktop systems. My textbook, however, was refering to XP. Vista is a bit different, in that it tries to better implement Symmetrical Multi-Processing. I think that as a result, you end up losing some of the performance you'd have with XP in single-processing.
But, the thing to consider with Windows (XP or Vista), is that the OS has system calls for desktop graphics. That isn't something present in Linux.

solaris has its own issues.

I know, but I just bring it up because it feels to me that people out there act like Linux is the shit, and that's all there is to it. Linux is good for specific things, but it's not the end-all OS solution for any problem.

[DimaYasny]

I honestly can't say too much about webservers, since I have no experience with them. But, I did read that Windows exceptionally well for desktop systems. My textbook, however, was refering to XP. Vista is a bit different, in that it tries to better implement Symmetrical Multi-Processing. I think that as a result, you end up losing some of the performance you'd have with XP in single-processing.
But, the thing to consider with Windows (XP or Vista), is that the OS has system calls for desktop graphics. That isn't something present in Linux.

well, I certainly get better performance out of my laptop running on an Intel VGA 945 card, with full compiz functionality and other pretty whatnots, than having run vista with aero on the same laptop.

I know, but I just bring it up because it feels to me that people out there act like Linux is the shit, and that's all there is to it. Linux is good for specific things, but it's not the end-all OS solution for any problem.

neither is windows. for simple usage, such as office work or running specialised accounting software maybe - windows is better. for servers it only has a few highlights due to the fact that a large software company sat down and wrote some specific software. I am talking about ms exchange, which is for now still better than zimbra, openxchange and other opensource solutions, but software like that can easily be written for linux, and will probably perform better there, due to the extra flexibility of linux for fine tuning.

my company actually runs on zimbra, and we are pretty happy with the product, nobody misses the old exchange days

[jbennet]

IMHO windows servers are much easier to administer. Linux systems are cheaper from a licensing point of view but many companies already have admins trained in windows and own ms licences. for them its often cheaper just to stay with ms rather than face headaches.

Vista is a bit different, in that it tries to better implement Symmetrical Multi-Processing. I think that as a result, you end up losing some of the performance you'd have with XP in single-processing.

No? SMP has been supported like since NT4.