Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The Linux Server Tournament

Filed under
Linux

In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of the Business Edition Linux Project team members. My greater interest is Linux use in the business place in general and in small business use specifically.

As part of a situational review for seeing how the BEL servers work with other distro based Linux servers on a given LAN, I thought I would write a less biased, hopefully more general discussion of the process and results of how each distro in the review performs individually and collaboratively.

The four distros used in this current test (there may likely be future tests using other distros) are BEL Server Basic, OpenSuse 11, Ubuntu server 8.04 and CentOS 5.

This entry is the "preface" to the overall review. The computers used will all be x86 based machines on an ethernet connection.

The server roles will be basic, common roles used in a small business.

* File/Print server using both NFS and SAMBA as well as CUPS
* Mail Server PostFix/Dovecot
* DHCP/DNS
* LDAP/authentication ( kerberos )
* Web server

The objective is not to determine which distro is "better" or "worse" but to find the best ways of implementing various Linux distro servers in the most productive manner.

To find nuances and perhaps provide some tips/hints for both the BEL Project and now the Linux community at large in a multiple distro server collaboration/implementation.

One of the biggest "complaints" we see is about the abundance of distros that are available. I am one who believes that is not a problem but instead a plethora of options in which certain distros are optimized for a certain area or level of performance. In that light, if distro A is optimized as a web server and performs best in that situation, why not use it as such and use distro B which has been optimized as a top notch file server platform, or area in which the devs have "tweaked" it to perform best?

By bringing these various distros together in one LAN, we want to obtain as much information about collaborative implementation between Linux distros. How well do they play together? What steps are necessary, if any, to make it as least complicated as possible?

Tune in next time when we begin to install and assign roles to our chosen four.

More in Tux Machines

Graphics: NVIDIA 440.44 Linux Driver, Microsoft Code, and WSL Performs Very Poorly

  • NVIDIA 440.44 Linux Driver Brings Fixes, __GL_SYNC_DISPLAY_DEVICE Honored With Vulkan

    Out today is NVIDIA 440.44 as the latest stable Linux driver update in their new long-lived driver series.  Succeeding the 440.36 and 440.31 stable drivers, the 440.44 release isn't too exciting but at least NVIDIA should be introducing a new beta series shortly. 

  • Intel's OpenSWR OpenGL Software Rasterizer Pulls In Tessellator From Microsoft Direct3D Code

    OpenSWR is Intel's performance-minded software rasterizer for purposes like workstation visualizations and is where it outperforms the likes of LLVMpipe. This CPU-based OpenGL implementation can make use of not only AVX/AVX2 but also AVX-512 and other optimizations to support speedy CPU-based GL operations from laptops to Xeon Scalable hardware. Like LLVMpipe, OpenSWR does leverage LLVM in part. Those unfamiliar with this long-standing Intel open-source project can learn more at OpenSWR.org.

  • Windows Subsystem For Linux Performance At The End Of 2019

    Recently I wrapped up some benchmarks looking at the performance of Ubuntu on Microsoft's Windows Subsystem for Linux comparing WSL on Windows 10 Build 18362 (May 2019 Update) and then both WSL and WSL2 performance using the Windows 10 Build 19008 Insider's Preview (what will come as Windows 10 20H1 update) for looking at where the WSL performance is heading. Additionally, looking at the bare metal performance of Ubuntu 18.04 LTS for which the WSL instances were based plus Ubuntu 19.10. As well, for the Windows-compatible tests also looking at how the Windows performance itself was outside of WSL/WSL2.

Testing IPFire 2.23 - Core Update 139 and Latest Security Patches

  • IPFire 2.23 - Core Update 139 is available for testing

    the last Core Update for this decade is finally available for testing! If you have a couple of hours free over the holidays, please help us out by installing it and sending us your feedback!

  • Security updates for Wednesday

    Security updates have been issued by Arch Linux (crypto++ and thunderbird), Debian (cacti, freeimage, git, and jackson-databind), Fedora (nss), openSUSE (clamav, dnsmasq, munge, opencv, permissions, and shadowsocks-libev), Red Hat (nss, nss-softokn, nss-util, rh-maven35-jackson-databind, and thunderbird), Scientific Linux (nss, nss-softokn, nss-util, nss-softokn, and thunderbird), SUSE (caasp-openstack-heat-templates, crowbar-core, crowbar-openstack, crowbar-ui, etcd, flannel, galera-3, mariadb, mariadb-connector-c, openstack-dashboard-theme-SUSE, openstack-heat-templates, openstack-neutron, openstack-nova, openstack-quickstart, patterns-cloud, python-oslo.messaging, python-oslo.utils, python-pysaml2, libssh, and strongswan), and Ubuntu (git, libpcap, libssh, and thunderbird). 

Mozilla and Beyond: Daniel Stenberg on BearSSL, Mozilla Root Store Policy, The Weak Notes, Wladimir Palant on Avira

  • Daniel Stenberg: BearSSL is curl’s 14th TLS backend

    curl supports more TLS libraries than any other software I know of. The current count stops at 14 different ones that can be used to power curl’s TLS-based protocols (HTTPS primarily, but also FTPS, SMTPS, POP3S, IMAPS and so on). The beginning The very first curl release didn’t have any TLS support, but already in June 1998 we shipped the first version that supported HTTPS. Back in those days the protocol was still really SSL. The library we used then was called SSLeay. (No, I never understood how that’s supposed to be pronounced) The SSLeay library became OpenSSL very soon after but the API was brought along so curl supported it from the start.

  • Announcing Version 2.7 of the Mozilla Root Store Policy

    After many months of discussion on the mozilla.dev.security.policy mailing list, our Root Store Policy governing Certificate Authorities (CAs) that are trusted in Mozilla products has been updated. Version 2.7 has an effective date of January 1st, 2020.

  • Week notes - 2019 w49 - worklog - The Weak Notes

    A week with a bad cold makes it more difficult to write week notes. So here my weak notes. Everything seems heavier to type, to push. This last week-end I was at JSConf JP. I wrote down some notes about it. The week starts with two days of fulltime diagnosis (Monday, Tuesday). Let's get to it: 69 open bugs for Gecko. We try to distribute our work across the team so we are sure that at least someone is on duty for each day of the week. When we have finished our shift, we can add ourselves for more days. That doesn't prevent us for working on bugs the rest of the week. Some of the bugs take longer.

  • Problematic monetization in security products, Avira edition

    A while back we’ve seen how Avast monetizes their users. Today we have a much smaller fish to fry, largely because the Avira’s extensions in question aren’t installed by default and require explicit user action for the additional “protection.” So these have far fewer users, currently 400 thousands on Firefox and slightly above a million on Chrome according to official add-on store numbers. It doesn’t make their functionality any less problematic however. That’s especially the case for Avira Browser Safety extension that Avira offers for Firefox and Opera. While the vendor’s homepage lists “Find the best deals on items you’re shopping for” as last feature in the list, the extension description in the add-on stores “forgets” to mention this monetization strategy. I’m not sure why the identical Chrome extension is called “Avira Safe Shopping” but at least here the users get some transparency. [...] The Avira Browser Safety extension is identical to Avira Safe Shopping and monetizes by offering “best shopping deals” to the users. This functionality is underdocumented, particularly in Avira’s privacy policy. It is also risky however, as Avira chose to implement it in such a way that it will execute JavaScript code from Avira’s servers on arbitrary websites as well as in the context of the extension itself. In theory, this allows Avira or anybody with control of this particular server to target individual users, spy on them or mess with their browsing experience in almost arbitrary ways. In addition to that, the security part of the extension is implemented in a suboptimal way and will upload the entire browsing history of the users to Avira’s servers without even removing potentially sensitive data first. Again, Avira’s privacy policy is severely lacking and won’t make any clear statements as to what happens with this data.

RISC-V based PolarFire SoC FPGA and Devkit Coming in Q3 2020

Microsemi unveiled PolarFire FPGA + RISC-V SoC about one year ago, but at the time, development was done on a $3,000 platform with SiFive U54 powered HiFive Unleashed board combined with an FPGA... Read more