Want a server noaw.

2009-02-23 04:50:34

#26

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:

Yeah, what kind of idiot would use an operating system designed for the environment it's going to be put in?
Windows Server 2008 - Windows Vista Home Basic.
What are you trying to say?

That Windows isn't very well suited for servers compared to Linux. It's like they took the desktop version and mixed it up a bit.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 06:04:22

#27

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6996|St. Andrews / Oslo

Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:

Windows Server 2008 - Windows Vista Home Basic.
What are you trying to say?
That Windows isn't very well suited for servers compared to Linux. It's like they took the desktop version and mixed it up a bit.

For what Finray wants to do, Windows is no worse than linux.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2009-02-23 06:25:30

#28

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

Jenspm wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:

What are you trying to say?
That Windows isn't very well suited for servers compared to Linux. It's like they took the desktop version and mixed it up a bit.
For what Finray wants to do, Windows is no worse than linux.

Yes, of course, but that's Finny

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 07:51:29

#29

mikkel: Member; +383|6865

Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Windows Server 2008 - Windows Vista Home Basic.
What are you trying to say?
That Windows isn't very well suited for servers compared to Linux. It's like they took the desktop version and mixed it up a bit.

Then you aren't a very smart person. Windows servers are designed to be deployed in Windows environments, and they do just fine at that. Using Linux for simply sharing media and storage between Windows machines adds unnecessary complexity, with few to no redeeming qualities.

"Windows isn't good for servers" is a popular phrase uttered by people who heard someone say it somewhere, but don't really know why that is, and don't have any original opinions on the matter.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-23 08:07:32)

2009-02-23 08:33:10

#30

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:

What are you trying to say?
That Windows isn't very well suited for servers compared to Linux. It's like they took the desktop version and mixed it up a bit.
Then you aren't a very smart person. Windows servers are designed to be deployed in Windows environments, and they do just fine at that. Using Linux for simply sharing media and storage between Windows machines adds unnecessary complexity, with few to no redeeming qualities.

"Windows isn't good for servers" is a popular phrase uttered by people who heard someone say it somewhere, but don't really know why that is, and don't have any original opinions on the matter.

Windows is ok for home usage and such, but I wouldn't use it for anything serious. I'm no Linux nerd, and even I run a Linux server distro on my server.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 09:31:00

#31

mikkel: Member; +383|6865

Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:

That Windows isn't very well suited for servers compared to Linux. It's like they took the desktop version and mixed it up a bit.
Then you aren't a very smart person. Windows servers are designed to be deployed in Windows environments, and they do just fine at that. Using Linux for simply sharing media and storage between Windows machines adds unnecessary complexity, with few to no redeeming qualities.

"Windows isn't good for servers" is a popular phrase uttered by people who heard someone say it somewhere, but don't really know why that is, and don't have any original opinions on the matter.
Windows is ok for home usage and such, but I wouldn't use it for anything serious. I'm no Linux nerd, and even I run a Linux server distro on my server.

I'm sorry, but based on what I've been reading in here and in other threads, the operating system choices that you make don't exactly serve as credible testament to the quality or application of these systems.

The characterisation of the people who categorically denounce the use of Windows on servers was supposed to serve as a prompt for you to provide at least some form of original thought or qualified argument against it. Just throwing that out there.

Windows on servers absolutely does have its place. Both in trivial and critical application infrastructure. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any large corporation that could disagree with that sentiment.

2009-02-23 09:46:46

#32

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:

Then you aren't a very smart person. Windows servers are designed to be deployed in Windows environments, and they do just fine at that. Using Linux for simply sharing media and storage between Windows machines adds unnecessary complexity, with few to no redeeming qualities.

"Windows isn't good for servers" is a popular phrase uttered by people who heard someone say it somewhere, but don't really know why that is, and don't have any original opinions on the matter.
Windows is ok for home usage and such, but I wouldn't use it for anything serious. I'm no Linux nerd, and even I run a Linux server distro on my server.
I'm sorry, but based on what I've been reading in here and in other threads, the operating system choices that you make don't exactly serve as credible testament to the quality or application of these systems.

The characterisation of the people who categorically denounce the use of Windows on servers was supposed to serve as a prompt for you to provide at least some form of original thought or qualified argument against it. Just throwing that out there.

Windows on servers absolutely does have its place. Both in trivial and critical application infrastructure. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any large corporation that could disagree with that sentiment.

Perhaps. I just don't see how the Windows UI, and update system in particular would work very well on a server. The former eats your RAM for breakfast, albeit that might not be an issue on high-end stuff, the latter is pretty self-explanatory. I wouldn't imagine running Windows on, say, a webserver. However, I'm no pro, and I'm certain there are places for Windows, too. I just think that for the majority of server-oriented tasks, Linux is more suitable.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 09:49:40

#33

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6764|so randum

This is sorta OT

how hard would it be to get a P3/4 rig, stuff it full of HD cap and set it as a media centre for a house, with approx 4-5 pc's connecting via wireless and wired?

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-23 09:58:35

#34

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6996|St. Andrews / Oslo

FatherTed wrote:
This is sorta OT

how hard would it be to get a P3/4 rig, stuff it full of HD cap and set it as a media centre for a house, with approx 4-5 pc's connecting via wireless and wired?

not hard.

Though streaming movies via wireless isn't great.

edit - This is how I have it set up. one PC is wired to the server, 3 others wireless and 1 via powerline.

Last edited by Jenspm (2009-02-23 09:59:37)

2009-02-23 10:02:31

#35

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6764|so randum

Jenspm wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
This is sorta OT

how hard would it be to get a P3/4 rig, stuff it full of HD cap and set it as a media centre for a house, with approx 4-5 pc's connecting via wireless and wired?
not hard.

Though streaming movies via wireless isn't great.

edit - This is how I have it set up. one PC is wired to the server, 3 others wireless and 1 via powerline.

How long would it take to drag and drop a movie across the wireless? Distance would be minimal

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-23 10:07:58

#36

mikkel: Member; +383|6865

Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Windows is ok for home usage and such, but I wouldn't use it for anything serious. I'm no Linux nerd, and even I run a Linux server distro on my server.
I'm sorry, but based on what I've been reading in here and in other threads, the operating system choices that you make don't exactly serve as credible testament to the quality or application of these systems.

The characterisation of the people who categorically denounce the use of Windows on servers was supposed to serve as a prompt for you to provide at least some form of original thought or qualified argument against it. Just throwing that out there.

Windows on servers absolutely does have its place. Both in trivial and critical application infrastructure. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any large corporation that could disagree with that sentiment.
Perhaps. I just don't see how the Windows UI, and update system in particular would work very well on a server. The former eats your RAM for breakfast, albeit that might not be an issue on high-end stuff, the latter is pretty self-explanatory. I wouldn't imagine running Windows on, say, a webserver. However, I'm no pro, and I'm certain there are places for Windows, too. I just think that for the majority of server-oriented tasks, Linux is more suitable.

UI resource usage in server versions of Windows is negligible. The "update system" has no more significant impact on performance than updating your Linux distribution and applications with any sort of package manangement system.

Windows operating systems are designed to interoperate with other Windows machines. Ask yourself which is better; doing all of the media and file sharing tasks that are intended to be done on this server natively, or implement it through a hacked-together application based off of interpretation of a proprietarily obscured half-way open protocol? There's no sense in running hurdles when all you want to do is get from A to B.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-23 10:14:11)

2009-02-23 10:09:56

#37

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6996|St. Andrews / Oslo

FatherTed wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
This is sorta OT

how hard would it be to get a P3/4 rig, stuff it full of HD cap and set it as a media centre for a house, with approx 4-5 pc's connecting via wireless and wired?
not hard.

Though streaming movies via wireless isn't great.

edit - This is how I have it set up. one PC is wired to the server, 3 others wireless and 1 via powerline.
How long would it take to drag and drop a movie across the wireless? Distance would be minimal

My brother says he uses ~2 minutes for a normal series episode (~180MB). I'll check the exact speed later tonight, when he's not gaming D:

Last edited by Jenspm (2009-02-23 10:10:38)

2009-02-23 10:38:47

#38

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
I'm sorry, but based on what I've been reading in here and in other threads, the operating system choices that you make don't exactly serve as credible testament to the quality or application of these systems.

The characterisation of the people who categorically denounce the use of Windows on servers was supposed to serve as a prompt for you to provide at least some form of original thought or qualified argument against it. Just throwing that out there.

Windows on servers absolutely does have its place. Both in trivial and critical application infrastructure. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any large corporation that could disagree with that sentiment.
Perhaps. I just don't see how the Windows UI, and update system in particular would work very well on a server. The former eats your RAM for breakfast, albeit that might not be an issue on high-end stuff, the latter is pretty self-explanatory. I wouldn't imagine running Windows on, say, a webserver. However, I'm no pro, and I'm certain there are places for Windows, too. I just think that for the majority of server-oriented tasks, Linux is more suitable.
UI resource usage in server versions of Windows is negligible. The "update system" has no more significant impact on performance than updating your Linux distribution and applications with any sort of package manangement system.

Windows operating systems are designed to interoperate with other Windows machines. Ask yourself which is better; doing all of the media and file sharing tasks that are intended to be done on this server natively, or implement it through a hacked-together application based off of interpretation of a proprietarily obscured half-way open protocol? There's no sense in running hurdles when all you want to do is get from A to B.

As I said, they do have their uses. If you just want to get from point A to point B, of course you should take the easiest way. But if you want to get from point A to point C and then back to point A before going to point E, they aren't optimal, if you get what I mean.

And what I meant with the update system is the "Your system needs to be restarted for the updates to take effect" part.

Jenspm wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
Jenspm wrote:

not hard.

Though streaming movies via wireless isn't great.

edit - This is how I have it set up. one PC is wired to the server, 3 others wireless and 1 via powerline.
How long would it take to drag and drop a movie across the wireless? Distance would be minimal
My brother says he uses ~2 minutes for a normal series episode (~180MB). I'll check the exact speed later tonight, when he's not gaming D:

Wireless g tends to get about 2-3MB/s. Do the maths with whatever file size you want.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-02-23 10:39:55)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 11:06:47

#39

mikkel: Member; +383|6865

Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Perhaps. I just don't see how the Windows UI, and update system in particular would work very well on a server. The former eats your RAM for breakfast, albeit that might not be an issue on high-end stuff, the latter is pretty self-explanatory. I wouldn't imagine running Windows on, say, a webserver. However, I'm no pro, and I'm certain there are places for Windows, too. I just think that for the majority of server-oriented tasks, Linux is more suitable.
UI resource usage in server versions of Windows is negligible. The "update system" has no more significant impact on performance than updating your Linux distribution and applications with any sort of package manangement system.

Windows operating systems are designed to interoperate with other Windows machines. Ask yourself which is better; doing all of the media and file sharing tasks that are intended to be done on this server natively, or implement it through a hacked-together application based off of interpretation of a proprietarily obscured half-way open protocol? There's no sense in running hurdles when all you want to do is get from A to B.
As I said, they do have their uses. If you just want to get from point A to point B, of course you should take the easiest way. But if you want to get from point A to point C and then back to point A before going to point E, they aren't optimal, if you get what I mean.

Why not? How is it even relevant to you dismissing the use of Windows servers in this thread, considering the simple tasks outlined?

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-23 11:10:42)

2009-02-23 11:12:35

#40

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:

UI resource usage in server versions of Windows is negligible. The "update system" has no more significant impact on performance than updating your Linux distribution and applications with any sort of package manangement system.

Windows operating systems are designed to interoperate with other Windows machines. Ask yourself which is better; doing all of the media and file sharing tasks that are intended to be done on this server natively, or implement it through a hacked-together application based off of interpretation of a proprietarily obscured half-way open protocol? There's no sense in running hurdles when all you want to do is get from A to B.
As I said, they do have their uses. If you just want to get from point A to point B, of course you should take the easiest way. But if you want to get from point A to point C and then back to point A before going to point E, they aren't optimal, if you get what I mean.
Why not? How is it even relevant to you dismissing the use of Windows servers in this thread, considering the simple tasks outlined?

For remote and web managed servers, I don't see the point in having things like a GUI installed.

We should drop this or continue by PM, this is far off topic.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 11:17:41

#41

mikkel: Member; +383|6865

Freezer7Pro wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
As I said, they do have their uses. If you just want to get from point A to point B, of course you should take the easiest way. But if you want to get from point A to point C and then back to point A before going to point E, they aren't optimal, if you get what I mean.
Why not? How is it even relevant to you dismissing the use of Windows servers in this thread, considering the simple tasks outlined?
For remote and web managed servers, I don't see the point in having things like a GUI installed.

We should drop this or continue by PM, this is far off topic.

You may not see a reason, but that speaks to your lack of qualification, not the usefulness of a GUI in certain applications.

This is far off topic because you're trying to avoid having to reason why you're advising against the use of Windows operating systems to perform the tasks outlined in this thread.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-23 11:18:05)

2009-02-23 12:50:30

#42

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6757|N. Ireland

Here is how the network in our house works:

Xbox 360 wired to the router - this plays all our movies, music, tv shows etc
My server wired to the router
My brother's music server wired to the router
All of our laptops wireless to the router, with streaming setup

It's simple but it works. And there is no streaming lag. Even with the removal of the 360, I can't see there being lag issues really.

2009-02-23 15:37:31

#43

CrazeD: Member; +368|6936|Maine

I'm with mikkel on this one.

Freezer, honestly, have you ever used a Windows server for any length of time? For what tasks?

I've managed several Windows dedicated gaming servers over the past few years, that were run on Windows Server 2003. I experienced absolutely no problems, or any lack of functionality whatsoever. Furthermore, despite heavy use the gaming servers never had any lag and didn't need much if any maintenance. The box was nearly full too.

I don't know what you're on about using a lot of resources, but that tells me that you have clearly not used a Windows server for any length of time. I can tell you that running several game servers, the CPU usage was never over 50% (E6600) and the memory was only about 1.5GB (out of 2GB) and that was running like 2-3 BF2 servers and a few COD4 servers, plus teamspeaks, and a web server, along with the administration UI's.

For such a simple task, you don't even need a server OS. I have my web server running on a gutted version of Windows XP Pro, and it does absolutely fine for what I need it to do. I could run it in Linux, sure, no problem...however that's completely unnecessary.

Despite the fact that Linux may be better for large scale servers, that is irrelevant as this is clearly not a large scale server. He simply wants to store files, and then share them across his network. You do not need any special OS for this, pretty much any OS will work flawlessly for this task.

There's no reason to run Linux here, except to extend your e-penis by saying you have a Linux server. And after all the headache, ask yourself if that is worth it, or if you just want a functioning hassle-free file server.

2009-02-23 21:10:27

#44

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

CrazeD wrote:
There's no reason to run Linux here, except to extend your e-penis by saying you have a Linux server. And after all the headache, ask yourself if that is worth it, or if you just want a functioning hassle-free file server.

I've said that 2-3 times.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-23 21:23:53

#45

CrazeD: Member; +368|6936|Maine

No, you just said how much Windows fails at servers.

2009-02-23 21:26:38

#46

TheDonkey: Eat my bearrrrrrrrrrr, Tonighttt; +163|5981|Vancouver, BC, Canada

I sorta skim read through 3/4 of the thread, but if going with Linux for a server, I'd recommend Ubuntu server edition,

Since it's based off of Debian, you get the magic of Apt-get install, so no need to compile and figure out crap.

Although I currently run Ubuntu Server on my server, if/when I finally get a new server, I'll probably switch to Windows Server 03 because then I can run it as a domain controller, and apparently that makes file sharing a sinch.

2009-02-23 21:28:39

#47

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6786|...

CrazeD wrote:
No, you just said how much Windows fails at servers.

I'm sure he is talking from reams of experience

2009-02-23 22:36:30

#48

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

CrazeD wrote:
No, you just said how much Windows fails at servers.

I'm just saying I don't find it optimal for many things compared to Linux. I ran stripped XP Pro/Server 2003 on my server for a while, and even if it worked, Ubuntu has been a much more pleasant experience.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-02-24 12:35:39

#49

THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS: Member; +2|5809

If all you need is a place to dump files why not something like Amazon S3? It's subscription based but the storage is cheap and you don't need any hardware.

2009-02-24 12:39:01

#50

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6461|Winland

THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS wrote:
If all you need is a place to dump files why not something like Amazon S3? It's subscription based but the storage is cheap and you don't need any hardware.

Because consumer-level internet connections are just as fast as internal networks.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

BF2S Forums Want a server noaw.

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS wrote:

Board footer