FW: System set-up

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: System set-up

Ed Paris


_____________________________________________
From: Ed Paris [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:50 AM
To: Debian Users Group
Subject: System set-up

Hello All,
I am new to the Linux world and have a few questions.  I currently have a
small (miniscule) consulting group that needs a system that can mimic our
web hosting service provider so we can further develop our site.  We do not
currently intend to have this system as a web server. We have a 1999 Gateway
Pentium III system with the following characteristics:
* 320 MB of RAM
* 10 GB Western Digital hard drive
* Promise Ultra ATA/66 hard drive controller
* CD/DVD ROM optical disk (it cannot write to disk)
* D-LINK DFE-530TX+ Ethernet card
* Windows XP

We are planning to reconfigure the system to:
* Same 320 MB of RAM
* Replace the 10 GB drive with a Western Digital Caviar 40 GB Ultra
ATA/100 hard drive
* Replace the Ultra/66 controller with a Promise Ultra ATA/100 TX2
controller that is backward compatible to our motherboard
* Replace the CD/DVD ROM optical disk with an AOpen COM5232
combination CD-RW/DVD ROM drive
* Keep the same Ethernet card
* Run Debian 3.1 (sarge), Apache 1.3, PHP 4.1.1, and MySQL 4.0

Does any of this approach make sense to those of you who know Debian?
Would you advise me to run GNOME or KDE instead of staying with BASH?  I am
an old coder by heart with experience with BASIC, COBOL, and SAS if this
information helps with your answer.  I appreciate any assistance any of you
can give me on this adventure.
Take care,
Ed Paris

winmail.dat (10K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: System set-up

David Christensen
Ed Paris wrote:

> ... needs a system that can mimic our web hosting service provider so
> we can further develop our site.

I tried matching my shared hosting provider (he.net), and it was impossible
because they use an internally-customized Linux distribution based on Slackware
9.0.0.


In any case, my web development machine is an Intel Advanced/AS motherboard with
a Pentium 166/MMX, 96MB of RAM, and ~5MB hard drive.  I have another with 48 MB
that I use as a CVS server.  I'm running Apache 1.3, mod_perl 1.29, Perl 5.8.7,
MySQL 4, PHP (4?), and it works just fine.  I ssh into the boxes for
administration and development.  I run them headless, and can connect them into
a KVM when needed.


I'd just keep the hardware as-is, do a minimal install (without X Windows), and
add the specific packages you want (Apache, etc.).  You can always throw money
at it later if needed.


HTH,

David


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: System set-up

marc-16
In reply to this post by Ed Paris
Ed Paris said...

> I am new to the Linux world and have a few questions.  I currently have a
> small (miniscule) consulting group that needs a system that can mimic our
> web hosting service provider so we can further develop our site.  We do not
> currently intend to have this system as a web server. We have a 1999 Gateway
> Pentium III system with the following characteristics:
> * 320 MB of RAM
> * 10 GB Western Digital hard drive
> * Promise Ultra ATA/66 hard drive controller
> * CD/DVD ROM optical disk (it cannot write to disk)
> * D-LINK DFE-530TX+ Ethernet card
> * Windows XP
>
> We are planning to:
> * Replace the 10 GB drive with a Western Digital Caviar 40 GB Ultra
> ATA/100 hard drive
> * Replace the Ultra/66 controller with a Promise Ultra ATA/100 TX2
> controller that is backward compatible to our motherboard
> * Replace the CD/DVD ROM optical disk with an AOpen COM5232
> combination CD-RW/DVD ROM drive
> * Keep the same Ethernet card
> * Run Debian 3.1 (sarge), Apache 1.3, PHP 4.1.1, and MySQL 4.0
>
> Does any of this approach make sense to those of you who know Debian?

Should be fine. Rather than replace the drive, you might as well keep
the old one; always handy for backups, etc. Not sure whether you need to
change the controller, but perhaps there are technical reasons for doing
so.

> Would you advise me to run GNOME or KDE instead of staying with BASH?

You can do all three, if you like. ssh is the traditional way to admin a
server, but you might want to run a remote KDE/Gnome session on it, if
that's what you are more comfortable with. I often do the latter on a
few headless boxes that are locked away in a cold dark room. This
behaviour can cause seizures in the "command line or die" brigade, so
always wear dark glasses when doing so.

--
Best,
Marc


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: System set-up

Dave Howorth
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 14:39 +0000, marc wrote:

> Ed Paris said...
> > * 320 MB of RAM
> > Would you advise me to run GNOME or KDE instead of staying with BASH?
>
> You can do all three, if you like. ssh is the traditional way to admin a
> server, but you might want to run a remote KDE/Gnome session on it, if
> that's what you are more comfortable with. I often do the latter on a
> few headless boxes that are locked away in a cold dark room. This
> behaviour can cause seizures in the "command line or die" brigade, so
> always wear dark glasses when doing so.

The memory footprint of gnome or kde or X is considerably larger. That
might be a reason not to run them.

Cheers, Dave


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: System set-up

marc-16
Dave Howorth said...

> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 14:39 +0000, marc wrote:
> > Ed Paris said...
> > > * 320 MB of RAM
> > > Would you advise me to run GNOME or KDE instead of staying with BASH?
> >
> > You can do all three, if you like. ssh is the traditional way to admin a
> > server, but you might want to run a remote KDE/Gnome session on it, if
> > that's what you are more comfortable with. I often do the latter on a
> > few headless boxes that are locked away in a cold dark room. This
> > behaviour can cause seizures in the "command line or die" brigade, so
> > always wear dark glasses when doing so.
>
> The memory footprint of gnome or kde or X is considerably larger. That
> might be a reason not to run them.

Sure, they can both drag a fair bit of chaff with them, but depending on
the use of the box and the needs of the user(s), it might be the best
choice. It's nice to be able to choose, though :-)

--
Best,
Marc


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: System set-up

Joseph H. Fry
In reply to this post by Ed Paris
> Hello All,
> I am new to the Linux world and have a few questions.  I currently have a
> small (miniscule) consulting group that needs a system that can mimic our
> web hosting service provider so we can further develop our site.  We do not
> currently intend to have this system as a web server. We have a 1999
> Gateway Pentium III system with the following characteristics:
> * 320 MB of RAM
> * 10 GB Western Digital hard drive
> * Promise Ultra ATA/66 hard drive controller
> * CD/DVD ROM optical disk (it cannot write to disk)
> * D-LINK DFE-530TX+ Ethernet card
> * Windows XP
>
> We are planning to reconfigure the system to:
> * Same 320 MB of RAM
> * Replace the 10 GB drive with a Western Digital Caviar 40 GB Ultra
> ATA/100 hard drive
> * Replace the Ultra/66 controller with a Promise Ultra ATA/100 TX2
> controller that is backward compatible to our motherboard
> * Replace the CD/DVD ROM optical disk with an AOpen COM5232
> combination CD-RW/DVD ROM drive
> * Keep the same Ethernet card
> * Run Debian 3.1 (sarge), Apache 1.3, PHP 4.1.1, and MySQL 4.0
>
> Does any of this approach make sense to those of you who know Debian?
> Would you advise me to run GNOME or KDE instead of staying with BASH?  I am
> an old coder by heart with experience with BASIC, COBOL, and SAS if this
> information helps with your answer.  I appreciate any assistance any of you
> can give me on this adventure.
> Take care,
> Ed Paris

Doesn't make sense to me... the expense of duplicating and maintaining a
server similar/identical to that of your hosting company is probably far more
expensive than it would be to have your hosting company host a second site
for you.  If it were me, assuming that the hosting provider has all of the
functions you need to manage your site properly, I would simply ask them to
host a second site for you... perhaps they would even do this for free if you
make it clear that this site will not generate any traffic beyond what is
needed for modifications and testing.  Hell, this way you might even be able
to have them simply change the DNS to point to the new site whenever you want
to bring it online.

My belief is that the less time you waste (not really a waste, for you, but of
company time it is) learning linux and trying keep this machine up and
running is more time that you can spend developing a better site... outsource
the hosting... and I mean all of it.  Just one less thing to concern yourself
with.

Joe


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]