Linux Distro for Server

[murakami]

Looking for recommendation for a Linux distro for a server.

Server specs are a Dell Poweredge 600SC, dual processor, gig of RAM. It will be running PostgresQL , Resin, servlets, EJBs and serving tons of XML. I expect a lot of disk I/O, and low to moderate amounts of floating point calculations.

[octalpus]

Slackware is a great choice for servers. Streamlined and incredibly simple to lock down.

[simple3]

while i haven't had a chance to play with it at all, SOL(server optimized linux) looks pretty cool. It uses an all XML based configuration system i believe. I haven't really had time to play with it yet. go with the distro you are most familiar with. that is probably actually the best answer, cause if you aren't familiar with it when it hits the fan, you don;t want to have to learn it then.
--simple3

[murakami]

I checked around with a couple of Linux/java colos and their answer is pretty much slack, slack, slack.

[^Dash^]

One word for ya'

You want a good server... one word(1): Debian
one word(2):OpenBSD

That's all i've got to say....

[converge]

I counted 17 words, two opinions, and one smiley face in that... your answer did not address his question, but blurted out a couple possibilities with nothing to support why they would fulfill his server needs.

I know you're not the first to do this in a technical thread, and I know you won't be the last; but I figured this would be the perfect EXAMPLE of what NOT to post in a technical discussion.

[murakami]

Perhaps, I should rephrase the question:

Is there a linux configuration for servers that will improve overall performance as webserver/application server?

Aside from not installing obvious things like X, NFS, etc., are there specific tweaks to improve disk I/O or SMP performance?

[hurt138]

Re: One word for ya'

Originally posted by ^Dash^
You want a good server... one word(1): Debian
one word(2):OpenBSD

That's all i've got to say....

i have to agree Debian all the way!

[blackwave]

i would imagine murakami is looking more than for a "me too" reply... perhaps something like:

• os flavor
  os version
  why do you consider it the best
  what references do you have to back this up
  ...

you know stuff that doesn't involve more opinion than factual evidence...

[lucifex]

I'd have to disagree about RedHat. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of their distro, but your reasons for not implementing it are flawed.

Most of the 'security updates' that redhat releases are due to vulnerabilities in software, like sendmail or whatnot. RedHat is one of the few commercial distros to release updated patches for these vulnerabilities quickly, that you can install without going through the patch/configure/make/reinstall process.

Granted, there have been some vulnerabilities discovered with RedHat specific software (RHN, RPM, etc.), but this is a small percentage of the security updates that the company puts together.

this is good as far as security, its not really helpful as getting your work done

I take particular issue with this statement. If you work in Information Security and you are not keeping your machines patched for all the known vulnerabilities, you're not doing your job.

Sure, use an obscure distro that doesn't release many patches. When the latest sendmail overflow comes out, redhat and debian will release a patch a day later, and your obscure-distro box will remain unpatched for months, be turned into a zombie, and contribute to the ill health of the internet. gg.

[murakami]

Originally posted by 0versight
When all you do is update and install patches/fixes for your servers, that leaves you with little time to work on the other areas.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I've haven't been a sysadmin in a decade), but isn't pushing updates and such the reason why software like Tivoli exists?