Recommended Linux distro?

[wwtz]

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum but not exactly new to Linux as I have used it in VM's and on a web server that I manage. However, I need advice about what version to use on a not so new machine.

I have a 7-8 year old Pentium 4 - 2 GHz with 512 MB of RAM that currently has Windows XP on it. I have substantial bandwidth at home, and in order to conserve space on my online server, I want to serve image files from my home PC using dynamic DNS. The above machine is not in use so I thought I would set it up as a Linux/Apache web server.

Several questions come to mind. First, is it feasible with that hardware to handle say 10K-20K requests per day? What about 50K? Second, if so, which Linux version would be best for this hardware? Third, what firewall software would be best?

I'm not averse to adding RAM if it's possible. The hard drive is more than large enough to handle any recommended OS with room to spare.

Thanks in advance.

Jim

[elija]

A pentium 4 should handle pretty much any distro OK. If you are going to be running a fairly busy server, I would recommend increasing the ram somewhat.

What distro does your web server use? Maybe you should stick with the same one. If it is Red Hat, then you can use CentOS which is just a rebranded and recompiled version of RHEL.

[GNU-Fan]

Hi,

the kernel of the system, Linux, has its own firewall and it is configured with the iptables utilities.

I do not know how good your connection is but I dare to say this will be the bottleneck and not the operating system. So as long as you don't use MSDOS, your OS will most probably not pant under 50k connection a day.

[wwtz]

Thanks for the input.

I have CentOS on my webserver, and have used Red Hat Linux in the past as well. I have a dedicated fiber optic line and upload speeds of about 4000 kbps during business hours, and somewhat more in the evenings and overnight when the site is busiest. It's a recreational site, about 65% US and Canada, 20% Australia, and the rest mostly Western Europe. Most of the users come before or after work, Since these files average 30-50KB I think I can handle bandwidth. I think 10-20K images/day is a reasonable best guess. The site has about 200,000 unique page views/month. I asked about 50K hits as the site will likely grow over time. If every one of those page loads has three images, then that would be 600,000 images/month or 20,000/day. However, only registered users will be able to see most of these images, and they account for fewer than half of my visits.

[GNU-Fan]

As you said you wanted to conserve space on your regular server, I conclude that they are to big to live in RAM all at once. Even when they average a size of 50KB, they will most probably be lying scattered across the hard disc which results in a non-negligible strain for it. This is one of the reasons why I am always a bit sceptical towards using an "old" (consumer class) machine as a server.

[kriss]

If you are familiar with Red Hat go with that.

If you wish, you could also do some speed optimizing to get the most out of your computer, a good document explaining this can be found here: Linux.com :: A three-pronged attack on performance -- Might be worth taking a look at if performance is of the essence...

[wwtz]

As you said you wanted to conserve space on your regular server, I conclude that they are to big to live in RAM all at once. Even when they average a size of 50KB, they will most probably be lying scattered across the hard disc which results in a non-negligible strain for it. This is one of the reasons why I am always a bit sceptical towards using an "old" (consumer class) machine as a server.

If cost were no object I'd build a new server to my current needs. Unfortunately, I haven't that option at this moment as my wife and two of my kids are in college and cash tends to be a bit tight. On the other hand I have a serviceable machine that's a bit old. It was bought when my kids were younger and now they all have laptops. The sites that I run are break-even for me at best, and are a hobby. If the images load slowly then people will have to wait for them. Honestly, even on a decent web server the html is generated in 0.15-0.20 seconds on average and takes a bit of time for a browser to download and display. The choke point may well be the user's connection speed and system.

If you are familiar with Red Hat go with that.

If you wish, you could also do some speed optimizing to get the most out of your computer, a good document explaining this can be found here: Linux.com :: A three-pronged attack on performance -- Might be worth taking a look at if performance is of the essence...

Thanks. I actually decided to do a trial with CentOS before I read this. I'm certainly more familiar with that. I installed 5.2 last night and checked that page out. Most of the disk optimization had been pre-configured and I had read speed around 39 MB/sec. I haven't tried the other things yet.