| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
masinick
Linux Guru
Joined: 03 Apr 2024
Posts: 8615
Location: Concord, NH
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2024 2:50 am Post subject: Erie, I think it all depends on what the end goal is |
 |
|
| eriefisher wrote: | Why make it so complicated? For just a basic file server install the os as usual and share out the available space.
My file/print server has two drives, a 10 gig with /, /swap and /home. The second drive is 250 gig which I mount in /home and share to the network. It's accessible via samba for a windows box(and Linux) and I also mount it locally via sshfs. I use this drive for all my backups and use grsync to keep everything in line. Nothing fancy.
The box is an old HP with a celeron 466 and 256mb of ram. There is also vncserver installed for further access since it runs headless.
Side note: By using the drives this way the os could fail or that drive fsil and my data is still in tact. Very simple. |
Erie, this server that Richard is setting up is a new Linux rollout to demonstrate Linux server capabilities as a potential replacement for various Windows servers. Richard, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the intention is to make the server environment solid and secure.
On a home system, even a personal server, it is a matter of preference whether you use a lot of partitions or just one or two. Personally, at home, I made it basic and simple - a / and a SWAP for each distro, and I reuse the same SWAP for all distros. But as a systems administrator, I want to isolate issues. I would definitely, for example, want separate /tmp and /var/log partitions, so no messing around or runaway process will take the entire system out, only the file system and apps affected, and that only until things can be pared down. Backups can be more easily planned according to partitions as well. Finally, separating user data makes it much easier to upgrade when the time comes. So yes, this is a trade off between simplicity and best practice. Administrators should follow best practice. Individuals are more free to follow either simplicity or best practice at their own convenience. Others are free to differ with me on this, but this is what nearly three decades of experience have taught me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord.DragonFly.of.Dawn
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2024
Posts: 607
Location: South Portland, Maine, USA, Earth, Sol System
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2024 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| masinick wrote: | | The sda convention is commonplace. It has always been used for SCSI devices, but many distros have dropped hda, hdb, hdc, hdd naming conventions entirely in favor of sd, while others use a mix of the hd for IDE drives and sd for other drive types. |
The Linux kernel assigns each device a set of nodes (major/minor) that uniquely identify it to the device.
The /dev/ directory is set up to map these nodes into canonical names (sda2, hda, etc). This can be done manually but more commonly via udev. udev defaults to the hda/sda naming scheme unless a custom set of rules are written for it.
personally I know of no distro that breaks the hda/sda convention, but would be very interested in the names of such distros so that i may be prepared if i encounter it...
_________________
ArchLinux x86_64 - Custom Built Desktop
ArchLinux x86_64 - Compaq CQ50 Laptop
ArchLinux i686 - Acer Aspire One Netbook
ArchLinux i686 - Dell Presario ze2000 (w/ shattered LCD)
PuppyLinux, CloneZilla, PartedMagic, DBAN - rescue thumbdrives
Windows 7 (x86_64 desktop alternate boot)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
richard
Ultimate Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2024
Posts: 2730
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2024 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ masinick - You are right in that I'm going to use this to demonstrate that Linux can be used successfully as a server in the work place.
I know that it is going to be a very simple server but I would like to set it up correctly.
_________________
Windows Vista / Ubuntu 8.10
|
|
| Back to top |
|
eriefisher
Jr. Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2024
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2024 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand perfectly why you would want to seperate out /var /temp etc if it was going to be a web or mail server but "for demonstration purposes" it still seems way to complicated for a file server.
I would be afraid of scaring the people your demonstrating it to. If you want to show them how to set up a mail or web server, spend the time and do it right. If people think they need all this other stuff(partitions etc) for a file server they just might be put off.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
richard
Ultimate Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2024
Posts: 2730
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2024 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| @ eriefisher - If we do role out Linux servers in the future it will probably be down to me as I'm the only one with any Linux experience and besides my boss I have the most general server experience as well.
_________________
Windows Vista / Ubuntu 8.10
|
|
| Back to top |
|
masinick
Linux Guru
Joined: 03 Apr 2024
Posts: 8615
Location: Concord, NH
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2024 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not think it is all that difficult to set up even a dozen partitions, add them to the file system table, set up their backup frequency, etc. At least that is not a tough job for any halfway decent systems administrator.
If this comes down to having to sell the approach, in that case, I could see showing people how you can whip a very basic system together on a single disk partition and very rapidly have something that at least works, but what sets Linux systems apart from the inflexible commercial alternatives is its ability to be finely honed so that it provides rock solid stability, great extensibility, very good security, and good ways of isolating problems.
I'd turn the added maintenance question into a plus - showing that yes, you can do it the easy way with Linux, too, but there are BETTER ways that keep your system safe, secure, fast, and reliable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
