Windows 2008 Server or Linux for server

[jimbo45]

Hi all
Have been a LONG LONG user of Linux as a server (hosting VM's XP / W7 mix) and file / print sharing.

I used to avoid MS like the plague as far as SERVER environments are concerned - probably because my first experince was Windows NT (Windows NeanderThal or Windows No Thanks) which was SO HORRIBLE that it put me off Windows servers for ages.

(Note I'm using a server in a HOME environment where we have around 8 machines (most of which are actually mine for testing -- not a corporate environment which has other considerations).

The problem now with the latest Linux distros that they are trying to be "A Better Windows than Windows". You can of course customize them but I haven't got the time or patience to do this any more. To select what packages to install / leave out now is a 100% pain and if you do it wrong the chances are the system will give errors.

I've looked at the new SUSE 11.2 -- slick and polished - bit I don't NEED "an alternative Windows".

I've just been looking at Windows Server 2008 R2 (got it from Technet) and I'm REALLY IMPRESSED with it so far. I've installed the STANDARD version - you don't need datacenter or Enterprise version for a home server.

It runs vmware server on it just fine (although I might go the whole hog and use the Hyper-V virtualisation -- need to do a bit more research).

I'm quite happy letting MS do the updates than having to mess around with Kernel compiles etc.

Incidentally as a HOME server there are some considerations that you might want to do to make it more like a Desktop OS than a pure server for example add multi-media to it.

This guy does a great job at this .
Convert your Windows Server 2008 R2 to a Workstation! - Multiboot Installation

W7 VM's run just fine on W2008 server (they should as there is a lot of common code).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[z3r010]

Windows servers have come a very long way in the last few years, I will never use a linux server ever again.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
W2008 Server -- Brilliant - but you do lose the ability to run a TV card on it - DVD playing is fine as well as media streaming so I'm not too bothered.

My Vm's run just fine without any change.

So finally -- Bye Bye SUSE -- was fun but things likeW2008 Server etc are the future of servers.

I'll try the Hyper-V server in W2008 server next -- it might take a while to convert my VM's from vmware format but I'm tempted to go for it after backing everything up.

Maintenance etc should be much easier if it's all MS stuff.

Cheers.

jimbo

 

[logicearth]

While I do not have a direct answer for your original post. But seeing as you are already taking the plunge may I point you to WSUS, Windows Server Update Service. Aka, single download (also fully controlled what is downloaded) from the remote Windows Update server cached on your local network where every other Windows system downloads from. That should help maintenance don't you think?

Windows Server Update Services (WSUS)

 

[Etihtsarom]

Can 7 be used as a server some how or would we have to do something like FTP server running on 7 ? Does Windows Server R2 allow connections from the WAN to retrieve/download files?

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
the answer to your question is YES - it acts as a fully featured server.

I suggest for a small office / home use install the STANDARD version - especially if you aren't too experienced with WINDOWS servers, rather than choosing the Data center / Enterprise editions. If you are a technet subscriber you can download a full version.

To add things like FTP etc you have to enable them in the server control panel - I'm not a network Guru -- so they can give better answers on setting up FTP servers etc.

I just use RDP if I want to access the server from a WAN or the "Public Internet". Being a SERVER of course it will allow multiple concurrent users to logon - but be slightly careful as to what software you install on it.

Some software requires "CALS" - "Client Access Licences" so you *might* need to enable these if say you want to allow a number of remote users to have access say to MS Office.

I believe the standard "default" allows 4 concurrent without getting extra licenses - I haven't gone into all the ins and outs of this as its not my area.

Running a web server or / ftp stuff won't give you any licensing issues however.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[logicearth]

Can 7 be used as a server some how or would we have to do something like FTP server running on 7 ?

By installing the FTP component for IIS of course. Learn IIS7 : The Official Microsoft IIS Site

 

[zrtom]

Hey Jimbo,
My server use is just for home also. I gave Server 2008 R2 a spin (from TechNet) but instead of using my time boinking the Server, I decided I'd rather use it boinking my W7 desktop.
So I'm using Windows Home Server. Before I tried it I thought, "aw, that's kids stuff." But I really like it for home use. The free web hosting, remote desktop, it's all in there. Power Pack 3 (beta) integrates with W7 libraries. The available add-ins tweak things like media management, web access/remote media streaming, storage pool management.... pretty cool.
The next iteration, code name Vail, will be based on Server 2008 (and 64-bit) and should be out early 2010.
Tom

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

Looks to me that Windows Home server seems quite limited in what apps you can run on it --

I can't see any reason to use it at all.

Windows 2008 Server is a REAL server that actually runs things and people can logon concurrently to it.

For media streaming there are LOADS of decent products out there -- I like Logitech Squeezebox - this application can even run from a laptop if you want it to.

Logitech Squeezebox Product Overview.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[CURaven]

Would it be silly for me to upgrade my current server (W2k3) to a W2k8 server if all I do on that computer is file share and backups? I am currently using the 180 day trial of W2k8 server and it's nice but probably overkill. I have Win7Pro on order and think that it should serve my needs just as well if not better than W2k3.

Also,
I'm curious how much cost went into some of your decision to use Windows 2008 server. If it weren't available as a TechNet download, for instance.

 

[Jordus]

We standardized on Server 2008 at work and its absolutely fantastic.

We have some NT4 Server VMs hanging around and yes, they are atrocious...but that was twelveish years ago. Things have changed.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so if SuSE is trying to be Windows that should tell you all you need to know.

Hyper-V is great, we use it in production (thats not to knock ESX, though). Server 2008 is great, and R2 is even better.

I dont think there is any question.

 

[pparks1]

I think the choice of server depends upon your needs and what you plan to run. For example, in my business...we run a ton of Apache and Tomcat boxes with MySQL databases and so forth. Running dozens of Windows servers for this isn't really advantageous simply due to the cost associated with Windows Servers. In addition, with a text based install and so forth, I can deploy new Linux boxes in about 10 minutes...much faster than I can with Windows servers. In additiion, with Windows servers also comes the need to license and install Antivirus solutions and that involves additional costs and resources. This generally isn't an issue on a Linux machine.

I often use Linux for email relays (Exim or Sendmail) and I use it for DNS (Bind). Also, a no-brainer is to use Linux to run my FTP servers.

On the flip side, for enterprise class databases and email and collaboration, we run Microsoft boxes and take advantage of Microsoft SQL Server and Exchange Server.

I'm quite happy letting MS do the updates than having to mess around with Kernel compiles etc.

I've not really had a need in recent years to use a customized kernel on Linux...so the comments before regarding having to recompile the kernel is really a non-issue. My server linux OS of choice is CentOS Server 5.x. And I simply let CentOS upgrade my entire box with an occasional "yum upgrade" command.

Windows servers have come a very long way in the last few years, I will never use a linux server ever again.

That's too bad that you aren't even looking at your options as far as technology is concerned. There are often safer, cheaper, more secure and easier ways to do things than those solutions provided out of Redmond.

 

[pparks1]

Hi there

Looks to me that Windows Home server seems quite limited in what apps you can run on it --

I can't see any reason to use it at all.

Windows Home Server is a fantastic product and for it's intended audience there are great reasons to use it.

#1). Cost: Windows Home Server is far cheaper
#2). Backups and restores: It automatically backs up all of your home PC's on a regular schedule and only backs up a single copy of each file to conserve space. You can restore individual files or the entire machine from bare metal.
#3). Easy volume management: You simply add drives, it adds it into a volume aggregate and that space is available for other uses.
#4). Built in easy media streaming.

For most home users, they woudn't ever be able to get a server based OS up and running and doing all of these things as easily as they can do it with Windows Home Server. Even as a server admin who is certified in both MS platforms and Linux platforms, I've considered the use of Windows Home Server for my Microsoft clients on my home network. It's simple, easy and flat-out works how it's advertised.

Plus, with a server, in my opinion...people shouldn't be logged in and using it as a workstation.

 

[Markmental]

Hi all
Have been a LONG LONG user of Linux as a server (hosting VM's XP / W7 mix) and file / print sharing.

I used to avoid MS like the plague as far as SERVER environments are concerned - probably because my first experince was Windows NT (Windows NeanderThal or Windows No Thanks) which was SO HORRIBLE that it put me off Windows servers for ages.

(Note I'm using a server in a HOME environment where we have around 8 machines (most of which are actually mine for testing -- not a corporate environment which has other considerations).

The problem now with the latest Linux distros that they are trying to be "A Better Windows than Windows". You can of course customize them but I haven't got the time or patience to do this any more. To select what packages to install / leave out now is a 100% pain and if you do it wrong the chances are the system will give errors.

I've looked at the new SUSE 11.2 -- slick and polished - bit I don't NEED "an alternative Windows".

I've just been looking at Windows Server 2008 R2 (got it from Technet) and I'm REALLY IMPRESSED with it so far. I've installed the STANDARD version - you don't need datacenter or Enterprise version for a home server.

It runs vmware server on it just fine (although I might go the whole hog and use the Hyper-V virtualisation -- need to do a bit more research).

I'm quite happy letting MS do the updates than having to mess around with Kernel compiles etc.

Incidentally as a HOME server there are some considerations that you might want to do to make it more like a Desktop OS than a pure server for example add multi-media to it.

This guy does a great job at this .
Convert your Windows Server 2008 R2 to a Workstation! - Multiboot Installation

W7 VM's run just fine on W2008 server (they should as there is a lot of common code).

Cheers
jimbo

If you want to be helped through the process choose windows