Note: While most of my comments seem directed at Bob, this message is on the list because I am intending these questions for everyone. Please feel free to answer. See below:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Older PC and DOS Internet Forum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Bob George > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SURVPC] Linux workgroup server > > > >"JJG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read the install was "much improved" and I "would > be > > up and running in no time". (Ha! :) > > Bummer you ran into problems. With a little bit of preparation, you should > be able to get some quicker results this time around. Hopefully, you still > remember some of that stuff. Good Luck, I ran out of long term memory about 5 years ago :) I sure wish I could just drop down some bucks and pick up another 40 GB of that. Seriously, Very little now but I am sure if I dug into it again it would come back. > > > I read up on partitioning and I thought I knew what partitions I wanted > for > > my application. Redhat thought it new better and picked > partitions (mount > > points?) different than I had expected. I disregarded redhat and went > with > > the partitions I thought best. > > There are a lot of schools on partitioning, and some folks probably get > pretty excited about the subject. There is debate about how big exactly > various partitions should be. But first, let's keep in mind WHY > you want to > partition. > > Typically, you want AT LEAST two partitions. One for swap space, > and another > for the Linux filesystem. > > SWAP: The recommendation I've seen (and use) for size of the swap > space is 2 > X RAM. Apparently, any less really doesn't gain you anything. Up > to 1 X RAM > size, and Linux is just mirroring physical memory. This is something that > has been optimized, fixed but has apparently become an issue in the latest > kernels again. If anyone cares, I can try to find some references > for this, > but I think 2 X RAM size is a good general recommendation. Maybe more if > your system is tight on RAM. Keep in mind, if memory and swap fill, you > won't get much done, so better to err for more here. In our LUG, some guys > routinely throw a half-gig at swap for heavy production systems with the > thought that running out is NOT a good thing. Too little is a bad > thing, too > much is wasteful. > > LINUX FILESYSTEM: You COULD put everything else on one large Linux (ext2) > partition. If you have a lot of space on a drive and just want to keep > things simple, this works fine. The problem is when you fill up various > parts of the filesystem, odd and unwonderful things begin > happening. Filling > up root (/), in particular, is a bad idea. So a common > recommendation is to > split various parts of the filesystem that are prone to filling up into > separate areas (partitions) so they don't step on each other. The > guidelines > I've used are for each of the following to be split off: > > 1. swap - HAS to be separate > > 2. / (root) - Should be large enough to accomodate some growth, but not > overly huge. Linux isn't that big. > > 3. /var - Lots of things like printing and mail spool files and > log files go > here. 500MB if I've got lots of disk space, but 250MB generally > seems to be > PLENTY, especially if you make sure log files don't grow out of control. > > 4. /tmp - Temporary file space, used by various programs. 200MB is usually > plenty. Again, I give it 500 if I'm on a huge drive. > > 5. /home - User home directories. This is where user files get stored. By > default, if you're using Samba to store user files on the server, this is > where a user's "My Documents" will get pointed (assuming you've set it all > up that way). In my case, that's where the vast majority of disk > space gets > used. This is also the "most important" stuff, so I want it backed up and > protected. Consider allocating most or all of your SCSI RAID space for > /home. > > 6. /usr - "Non-core" system and program files. If you're going to > be putting > a lot of stuff (X etc.) on, /usr might get fairly large. Balance between > /usr and /home based on how much you'll work at the actual Linux console > versus from Windows machines accessing it. > > If you do find that one partition or another is filling up, all > is not lost. > By using symbolic links (see "man ln"), you can point (link) a portion of > the filesystem to another physical partition. For example, I once > found that > I had undershot on the size of /var, as Debian stores udpated > packages under > /var/cache/apt/archives and I'd been updating frequently. I > simply moved the > contents of /var/cache/apt/archives to /usr/shared/debian (my > partition for > /usr had a LOT of free space) and created a link via "ln -s > /usr/shared/debian /var/cache/apt/archives". Everything works fine, and my > package cache can grow to a huge size without filling up /var. > > Whatever you do, be sure to write it down somewhere in case something goes > amiss. Print out the contents of /etc/fstab or do "mount -l" once it's all > running. Got IT! That does not seem to bad. Luckily this system will not be limited in drive space. > > > Anyway, Linux installed but X failed. I > > wasted many hours floundering around at the prompt trying desperately to > > remember some Unix commands from school and fix X. > > That's a miserable way to learn. LOL, Your telling me :). > > > I jumped from linux site > > to linux site reading everything I could (Man, there are alot of Linux > > sites, one could easily get lost). After much digging I came up with > > something like "The diamond video card with a weitek chip is > unsupported". > > Don't quote me on those specifics but whatever video card I had was at > > fault. > > Yeah, that's why I'd STRONGLY suggest reading up on the hardware you're > considering BEFORE undertaking a Linux install. Some CAN work with some > effort, and some simply WON'T. Others work like a champ. The low > price of a > new, supported card is well worth the frustration saved. I hear ya. > > > By this time I was about 3-4 times over the time allotted so I put the > > project down for another day with more time. About a month or so later I > > stumbled across a brand new linksys cable/dsl router for $5 at a garage > sale > > and the linux project was dead :) > > Hehe, Those lil' blue boxes ARE pretty impressive. I am certainly happy. It took me all of 5 minutes to take it out of the box, plug it in, and configure it! Best 5 bucks I ever spent! > > > Sooo, here I am today. I no longer need internet sharing or ipchains > > (unless linux can do it better than a linksys router and Zone alarm > running > > on all the clients.) > > "Better" is always one of those flag words. I like the fact that my Linux > firewall/gateway can do pretty much whatever I want to with it. I've done > some routing labs, VPN, and mutli-DMZ configurations for various projects > that could ONLY be done with something like Linux. But for 99% of what > people want, the little Linksys will probably be just fine. If > nothing else, > you can slowly work up to what you want to do with Linux, then replace the > Linksys when you're comfortable (and not before). Yes, That makes sense. > > As to Zone Alarm, I do think that having those sorts of tools in one place > (the firewall/gateway) rather than each desktop (PCs) makes good sense. > Single point of management, reduced maintenance and software load on > desktops, etc. Just one point I'd like to make, Even if I did have a full blown firewall/gateway in place, I still would be running zone alarm on the clients. Zone alarm is so easy and effective the management is nil and Zone alarm does one thing no linux firewall is going to do.... Zone Alarm alerts me and blocks all that crappy M$ (and others) software that tries to phone home! There one thing that pisses me off to no end is software that phones home. On my XP machine, zone alarm pops up every few hours or so warning me of some part of the OS trying to access the internet. :( Luckily, I all I need to do is deny the offending process access. If Linux can deny select individual processes from within a windoz box internet access while allowing others to pass, you will have me absolutely sold. >If you're at all interested in security, Linux can provide > some VERY impressive intrusion detection (IDS) and logging tools, > either in > line with, or replacing the Linksys as the gateway/firewall. > > > But I would still like to run samba for file sharing > > and learn apache. > > That's a good target for getting started. The Samba/Windows interaction is > interesting. Try not to commit to any one configuration until you've had a > chance to play around a bit. Please explain more, I am not sure what you mean. >I've got my systems set up so each user can > move between any of three desktops, and all their preferences (including > desktop settings) and files are available from each using the Windows > "roaming profile" feature. Sounds very slick, I doubt I will take it to that level. > > > The best hardware I could scrounge up for the task is below: > > > > Agenda full tower case 300 watt power supply > > > > AIR 586EP Motherboard with onboard SCSI (Adaptec 7870P) > > Do a bit of research and make sure that the SCSI controller is well > supported. (More on SCSI below). Will do. > > > 2 PCI slots and 5 EISA > > AMI Bios Date 12/15/93 > > > > The processor is a Pentium running at 66 mhz > > > > 32 meg ram > > That all sounds quite promising! > > > Diamond Speedstar 64 PCI (Cirrus Logic Chip CI-GD5434-HC-C) > (This is not t > he > > same Diamond I had problems with, I put that in a windoz box.) > > Again, do a bit of research before embarking. I've got an old Diamond > Speedstar and it works fine, but I don't do X with it. I wouldn't > expect any > problems, but do check. Yeah for sure. "I wouldn't expect any problems" Is another set of Famous Last Words ;-) If I remember correctly, My logic on the first go round was "Diamond was such a popular manufacture of that era, my card has to be supported". Heheheh see where that got me. :) > > > I have 2 nics in the box from the last go round, but I believe > I only need > > one now. Let me know If I should remove one nic to simplify > things. The 2 > > nics are: > > > > 3com Fast Etherlink XL PCI 3C905-T4 > > Linksys Ether16 Lan Card ISA > > One will suffice for now, and adding another later is no big > deal. Keep the > 3Com in for performance reasons. That card is well supported. > > > I have 3 full height SCSI drives. After I finish off a little > more sheet > > metal work and add another fan, they will all reside in the full tower. > > A couple of things: > > 1. I assume it's a BOOTABLE controller? Again, check into any hardware > compatability issues BEFORE starting. You may find some oddities with that > controller (i.e. need to pass parameters on boot). Yes. > > 2. SCSI drive partitions are identified differently. Rather than > hda1, hda2, > you'll have sda1, sda2 (someone correct me if I'm wrong). A small > thing, but > it can be annoying if you don't catch it. Not sure how this will effect things? > > > I figure the boot/OS drive will be a Maxtor P1-17S (1.76 GB) > > The 2 drive's I'd like to software raid are identical Seagate ST410800N > (9.1 > > GB unformatted) > > I know RAID exists, but can't say I've done much with it. Do you (anyone) suggest I not bother with it? Remember this whole experiment started out with me trying to get a full 14 gig partition somewhere. Can I possibly use ln to span my /home over the 2 scsi drives? > > Are you considering any particular distribution at this point? Again, this > is the subject of many a holy war, so the following is only MY > perspective. > Take a look around and assess the level of outside help you'll have > available. If there's an active Linux User's Group (LUG) in your area, do > the advanced users there tend to lean to one distribution or another? Does > your favorite nephew who's a Linux bithead have a preference? Does the > bookstore seem to be stocked with titles that match what you want > to do with > a particular distribution? > > As an example, I found a GREAT book on setting up small office servers > entitled "RedHat Linux 6 Server". Now I know a lot of people > really dislike > RedHat. It's not my favorite either, but it IS widely supported, > both online > and in print. I find more books specifically oriented towards RedHat than > any other, at least locally. Also, despite what folks may say, RedHat is > STILL Linux. There's NOTHING that can be done with one distribution that > can't be done in any other. The difference is in the TOOLS provided > out-of-the-box. What's MOST IMPORTANT is how you'll be able to learn, and > that is going to be based on what support is available to you. > The good news > is that 90%+ of what you learn using one distribution applies to > all others, > especially once you get down to the CLI level. The underlying differences > tend to be in configuration tools and file system layout (and ease of > migration between releases). In my case, this book focuses specifically on > using Linux on a small, networked workgroup server. It covers working with > disk partitions, multiple network adapters, Apache and Samba in > good detail. > It also has sections on tuning and security Although I'm a Debian user, I > found the information in there still applied for the most part, so I still > picked it up. If you find a good reference that describes a particular > distribution to a level of detail that you're comfortable with, consider > going that route. You may wind up switching down the road, but at least > you'll get things working and understand them to the point that > you'll know > WHY another distribution is superior. >From a rookies point of view, I am inclined to go with RedHat again. That is what I find the most books on. That is what _seems_ to be the most covered locally. As for LUG's, I though this was it :). I must say that the things you list below are also important to me. I am trying to make a server, I do have broadband, I don't have much free time, and I hate when buggy code is pushed out the door. With that said, Debian seems very appealing to me. Do you think Debian will find my hardware and get me up and running with minimal pain? Again, I am a Linux rookie so what do I know. I am hoping someone here will know which distro I should pick. > > My personal priority is on ease of maintenance and security. My Linux > systems are on the Internet 7X24 via my broadband connection. I want to be > able to update easily between releases (distribution updates and core > packags such as Apache). I DON'T have a lot of time to audit code, and to > recompile security fixes, especially when they're rolling out > quickly. And I > REFUSE to run packages with known bugs or unstable status, hoping nobody > will notice. Based on those needs, I've chosed Debian. Upgrades between > package releases and even full distribution updates is particularly simple > with a broadband connection. I do "apt-get update" to read the latest > package info in, then "apt-get upgrade" or "apt-get dist-upgrade" and > everything I've got installed (and nothing more) is updated. I do a bare > minimum install, then install EXACTLY what I want via "apt-get install". > apt-get is very good at NOT breaking things on upgrades, or at > least giving > fair warning. There's VERY LITTLE overhead with Debain (relatively > speaking:). A typical server configuration (less user files) is > under 200MB, > and I could pare it back considerably if I didn't want my > convenience tools. > However, Debian takes the approach of "it's not ready 'til it's ready", so > their releases of new and exciting packages tend to lag behind the leading > edge (not good for those who want all their multimedia toys). The > install is > also less friendly than some (no GUI whatsoever), and the default package > manager (dpkg) is NASTY for newbies (IMHO). However, with a good reference > or other source, you might consider Debian if this sounds appealing. > > Are you expecting to use X extensively? No. > X tools are evolving rapidly, so > documentation may be out of date. X also tends to be one of the most > frustrating areas for newbies. I avoid it, but the tools can be handy for > getting going. (FWIW: I do plan on migrating my desktops to X, but I'm not > quite there yet. The family is still Windows-dependent, at least for now. > I'm hoping the final release of StarOffice 6 will help.) I much prefer a > non-GUI configuration for servers, as I want all available performance for > serving clients. Understood. > > > As for that C64, It is still up in my attic, in it's original box, in > > perfect condition, with a few other hardware goodies and many > shoeboxes of > > software. One day when I have a ton of free time (like when I > am retired > > ;-) I will drag it our and fool around. > > Did you check out Or's links to a web server running on a C-64? It's > connected via a serial SLIP link to a Linux box. THERE's a project for ya! > :) Yes I did, That link put the old box into my mind. It's good to see a real survpc getting some hits. Thanks Bob and Everyone for the help/info. John To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
