That would probably be dissuasive, since "lurking" is one of those popular
guilty pleasures.
On the other hand, since my page would be automatically active when my
machine is on (meaning others pages would be on only when someone with the
same system is connected), how would I feel about
I see, thanks for the explanation MB.
Oh, that's cool. Specially for what I have in mind (if it's even possible),
it shouldn't need much resources.
I have a very specific, but possibly completely wrong idea of the way I want
to use this server.
(I think) I get the basic idea of a server, but this is a special case. Most
services would be useless if the server isn't on at all times.
I'm thinking of a way to keep my data on my machine,
I know this, yet I have a hard time imagining I can install one computer
inside or alongside another, both running at the same time, and without
virtualization.
Ah, maybe I misunderstand how this works.
I don't plan to be hosting anything. I was thinking of having a pod with my
data on it, and connect with others from my pod when I'm on.
supposedly, if others either have their own pod or are on someone else's, it
should work.
And I was thinking
> The accounts on your pod would not be available when the computer is off
the network
Indeed they won't be available.
> (or do Diaspora's automatically pods copy their accounts to other pods for
high availability?).
They don't.
A private server needs very little resources and it doesn't need to be that
stable. It's not as special as you think. Just try it and see.
You are right of course, but the word "server" does imply a special set of
conditions; being on all the time, having a fixed IP (or a work around that
achieves the same thing), and so on. As others have pointed out here, using
the same PC for server functions and desktop use risks the server
I'm presuming the theory is that running the server functions in a separate
virtual machine from the desktop functions will mitigate the stability
concerns mentioned by Magic Banana. The approach I was thinking about was
doing it the other way around, ie running the desktop system inside a
Indeed. hack and hack, there's nothing special about a "server." It's just a
computer running some programs, nothing more.
I didn't think of stability issues (which I kinda have).
I'm definitely not too hot for remote hardware unless I intend to have many
visitors.
Last but not least, let's say I want a server to get social media like
Diaspora the easy way (just like getting a program from the repo). I don't
I can see that it would be complicated for emails.
But I assume it should be OK for things like social media, or many other
services.
Just out of ignorance : I didn't know I could set up my main OS also as a
server at the same time.
Not sure how I'd do that though, it seems harder to do (but virtualization is
hard in its own way as well, specially since Virtualbox isn't an option
anymore).
The most ecological solution generally is sharing one dedicated server
between many users. Each of them can administrate her own virtual machine. By
sharing, the load is more constant: the hardware does not spend as much
electricity being idle. The hardware in question usually is
You can, if you don't turn off your PC often and don't carry it around
regularly. But why would you need to use virtual OS instead of your normal
OS? That's doesn't seem efficient and it will require more resources.
Well obviously it may become problematic should you want to turn your
personal computer off for some time to save power or something.
If your computer is a desktop it probably would be less efficient than
keeping a small single board computer on for all the time.
Hi,
I was wondering if there might be technical issues
preventing me from having my personal server not on an external machine
'netbook, BBB etc.),
But inside a virtual OS on my main PC?
It would demand more CPU power and RAM, but that aside, what else?
Plus I doubt it would take much RAM and
18 matches
Mail list logo
