Server Best Practices --

[p.echols at comcast.net]

----- "Rashkae" <ubuntu at tigershaunt.com> wrote: 
> p.echols at comcast.net wrote: 
> > I have a few projects in mind that are - for me at least - somewhat ambitious. The question is about best practice / acceptable practice for server installations. (I have been using Ubuntu desktop on my laptop for a few years now but have a learning curve ahead for setting up and running a server.) 
> > 
> > The question is can all of my projects run successfully on one server, and if not, why would that be a bad idea. The following are what I have in mind (I don't think these are all really separate projects, but this is how they are organized in my mind): 
> > 
> > Project 1. Setting up a LAMP server for testing of web pages / apps before transferring them to the commercial site that has my website. 
> > Project 1 (a) Using the same to set up an Intranet page for home documents etc and info I mention this one because that would be about the maximum limit of the traffic. 
> > 
> > Project 2. Setting up a Samba server so that the in house Windows users have lan based redundant (RAID-1) storage / backup area. 
> > 
> > Project 3. Allowing server to function as remote site for my office automatic backups. 
> > 
> > Project 4. LTSP server both to serve Ubuntu desktops and w/ a virtual machine to serve XP desktops. (The boxes that would be using this all have their own licenses. But the hardware was never really adequate and by today's standards pathetic). 
> > 
> > The machine currently redundant and tapped as the probable server is a Celeron 2.4 ghz w/ 1.6 Gb RAM. Ideally I'd like to just add the drives required to support the necessary storage, possibly more ram and get started, one thing at a time. 
> > 
> > Anyone care to share their thoughts. experiences, places that I should be reading. (I always appreciate a RTFM response as long as I know which FM I should read) 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > P 
> > 
> > 
> 
> I think LTSP with Windows running in a virtual machine is pushing 
> things.. Desktop use, either Linux or Windows, needs a crapload of RAM, 
> and trying to run both simultaneously like that is just not going to be 
> very efficient. 

By "both" do you mean serving both Linux and Windows desktops? Or do you mean both desktops and the other server functions? 

> But there's no real technical reason you can't do all 
> of that on one server. 
> 
> Although, I would never try to host private data (ie, company off site 
> backup, for example) on a system with multiple desktop/console users. 
> Just too many ways for something to go unexpectedly wrong. 

Ok, I had not really thought about that. Do you mean too many things the desktop users could screw up? Or just too much going on on one machine. If the former, wouldn't that be solved by having the private data go to a directory that was only read writable by the "user" logged in to do the backup? My idea is that the office system is a samba server to the office network that nightly does an ssh session to the remote server and saves changed files. (I think this is rsync through / over ssh, but I have not even started studying that yet. 

Thanks for the thoughts. I'd much rather figure out where I want to go before I start just experimenting. 

Patton 

> 
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-users mailing list 
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com 
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20090208/a94cc27f/attachment.html>