Geek Question Re: Linux

[jfields 0]

Hey fellow geeks...

I should be picking up 6 dual-processor hot-swap SCSI rackmount servers today from a company that is going out of business. The price is definitely right. So I was thinking of keeping the cost down and not picking up 6 copies of Win2k Server. These machines will be used primarily as file servers. I should have enough drives in every machine to make them all RAID 5.

I'm a Linux novice, having only used dual-boot Red Hat machines for awhile. These servers have to be interoperable with a Windows environment for file access. The network is TCP/IP, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. The OS has to support dual processors. The hardware should be pretty standard. I'm generally more interested in ease of admin than the widest array of features. OS-driven RAID would be good, in case I can't get RAID cards from the company going under.

What flavors of Linux would you recommend for the situation?

Thanks!

• Quote

[riddler 0]

Software raid is standard on the Linux 2.4 kernel. I would recommend RedHat as an OTS Linux package, but they should all have pretty much the same base for RAID. IBM has proprietary RAID hardware/code that is much more optimized, but they charge an arm and a leg for it.

Here's a link to start:
http://linas.org/linux/raid.html

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kevin922 0]

Well I am about to install redhat 8.0 on my dual proc rackmount... i'm running XP on it now.. but if you don't know linux i guess mandrake is the most user friendly.

[Guest]

Suse 8.0 Pro is pretty friendly too, and setting up file and print services for Windows clients via Samba is a no-brainer. Multiple processors (32, IIRC) and SCSI RAID are both fully supported.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[CrazyIvan 0]

I'd recommend SuSe 8.1, IMHO is better that RedHat, allows you to do some more tweaking, I really like it.

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[Guest]

Have you considered using those servers to build a Beowulf Supercomputing Cluster? http://www.beowulf.org

Nothing like sheer horsepower, even if the application of it is pretty narrow. You'd get serious bragging rights, tho

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[bwilling 0]

You can't go wrong with any of the 3 distros already mentioned! I personally run Mandrake, but have used Redhat also, and liked it too... and all three distros have nice GUI tools that will help ease the transition from the evil empire... You might want to install SWAT to ease Samba administration, depending on your comfort level with hacking around in files like the smb.conf file.

"If all you ever do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

[bwilling 0]

  Quote

Have you considered using those servers to build a Beowulf Supercomputing Cluster? http://www.beowulf.org

Nothing like sheer horsepower, even if the application of it is pretty narrow. You'd get serious bragging rights, tho

Yeah, what Mark said! THAT would rock!!!

or... you could just install all 3 distros, then pick one!

"If all you ever do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

[wildblue 7]

  Quote

Have you considered using those servers to build a Beowulf Supercomputing Cluster? http://www.beowulf.org

Yes! Then you'd have a good reason to buy this sticker:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/stickers/287a/

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[jfields 0]

Beowulf clusters are really cool, but not where I'm headed with this. Another time, after I win the lottery. Then I'll play with my Beowulfs in my datacenter.

Instead of speed, I'm looking for reliability and storage. If there was a good Linux app that handled distributed storage accross servers and integrated redundancy by automatically duplicating files on multiple servers while providing a single interface for users, that would be great. Basically, a Linux version of MS's distributed file system w/active directory. Hey, it's a nice wish, isn't it!

[Guest]

I've read that Beowulf has been used for clustering where high performance is critical, such as with web services. No reason, methinks, why it couldn't be used for file and print services.

Please see also Oak Ridge Laboratory's Beowulf:

http://stonesoup.esd.ornl.gov/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E238B-33EC-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2

I've also read about a Beowulf Cluster being built by high schoolers as a science project, so how hard can it be?

Here is a distro on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2075269567

--------------------

The thing about a Beowulf Cluster, though, is that if you do build it, you gotta give it a kewl name (Grendel is already taken [Clemson]). My favorite thus far is "Megalon" at Sandia Labs http://megalon.ca.sandia.gov/

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[wlie 0]

Not to steer you the wrong way, but why not try out Darwin? Afterall, you've got 6 machines. Wouldn't hurt to try it on one right?

More info here if you're interested.

And if you're looking for a GUI interface for it, take a look at XDarwin

My other ride is the relative wind.

[wildblue 7]

Like this?
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/4361/1/

  Quote

Basically, a Linux version of MS's distributed file system w/active directory. Hey, it's a nice wish, isn't it!

heh... where do you think MS got the idea for DFS services? :)

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[PhreeZone 20]

>heh... where do you think MS got the idea for DFS services? :)

Novell?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[wildblue 7]

No, they stole active directory from novell. Even then, they couldn't do it right, so they bought a company that could.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality