Red Hat vs. Netware - For a file server

[TheJackal]

I've been thinking about setting up a personal file server and I'm debating which OS to go with, Red Hat, or Novell Netware.

I want to stay away from Microsoft as all of their server operating systems are super expensive.

So, I would like your opinion, which is better for a file server, Red Hat, or Netware?

BTW. I am currently looking at some used Compaq Proliant servers. And thus have pretty much decided that a Compaq Proliant will be what I will use.

[Mr N8]

Redhat can be set up as a file server free of cost, which in my opinion is the biggest advantage.

[TheJackal]

Netware v6.5 Beta is a free download as well.

[Mr N8]

Well, from that aspect then, I would maybe look at Novell. I know that setting up a file server on Novell 6 is fairly easy, and the server should be pretty solid.

[mairving]

I guess it is a matter of getting Linux which is rapidly growing and has a lot of development and support with Novell which is in very serious decline. The future of Novell does not look good. It would be better to know Linux than Netware in today's world.

[TheJackal]

Perhaps Red Hat is the way to go then... How many processors will Red Hat see, and how much ram will it use?

[jlowmt]

I use Red Hat linux for a file server and had no problems.

Install is getting easier and easier but I'd go and buy a book and the cd's. I recommend Red Hat Linux 9 Bible by Christopher Negus. It sells for $40 - $50 with a 3 CD set. Includes the software you'll need and comprehensive instructions.

Well worth it.

Online support etc is just getting better and better for RH

I'm not sure about the processors, you could check out the forums at redhat.com.

You can get away with 64 MB of ram, 192 is recommended for graphical mode.

[Mr N8]

With Redhat, I would use at least 128mb RAM, as it likes to use all of the RAM that it can.

The base Redhat product supports 2 processors. Redhat Advanced Server supports 8. Of course, if you are looking for free, you will be getting the base product.

[mairving]

Of course, you don't have to use Redhat either as your Linux distro. There are many other flavors of Linux and also BSD. Redhat is the most widely supported but they have too many annoyances for me.

[Mr N8]

That's true. I think that if you are comfortable with the Linux system, you should look into using BSD, since it requires very little in the way of hardware. Also, I've heard a lot of good about Slackware and Gentoo lately. Haven't tried them out yet, but it will happen in time.

[TheJackal]

What other Linux server distros are there out there, that are free, and support more then 2 CPUs and 4gb of ram?

[Xayd]

Linux will give you more support for recent hardware and more windows-like applications if you intend to use it as a desktop OS, depending on the distribution.

However, if you only need this machine to be a standalone file/web/database/mail/whatever server, the BSDs are much more compact and very easy to set up and maintain, imo.

You can get a bootable CD image of the minimal FreeBSD installation at freebsd.org, which will give you the OS, mail, the ports list, and network support, basically. If you have a static IP or DHCP connection you can install whatever else you want from their FTP site directly through the OS. Their port maintenance system is very well thought out and very well maintained. You get a list of makefiles and documentation for each application, basically, and if you want something that's listed all you have to do is change to its directory under the ports tree and run an install command, which will result in the OS going out to a list of FTP sites, downloading the required sources, compiling them, and installing them automatically.

The manual for the OS is here...

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO...ook/index.html

Specifically read the section on ports and the pkg_add/pkg_delete commands for getting what you need installed.

[TheJackal]

Thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out.