recommend a lightwight distro for mysql / phpmyadmin

[Red Squirrel]

I'm currently installing FC10 but OMFG is that ever freaken bloated. It's been 12 hours, it's STILL installing. It's installing all stuff I don't even need nor did I even choose to install, like subversion and tons of other stuff. It's almost as if it decided to go online to get packages and install the entire repository or something.

I'll let it go overnight but holy crap, this is overkill for a simple DB server. Anyone know of a good distro I could use if this does not end by tomorrow? I did a search but most are either floppy based and not really meant to be installed. I want something simple, just insert CD, install, done. I suppose Ubuntu might be worth even though it's more meant as a desktop OS, any other choices? It just needs to do mysql, apache/php for phpmyadmin, maybe samba.

Has anyone else ever run into this issue installing FC10, it's just retarded slow to install. For part of the day the load was very high so I could tell something was happening but now the load is at 0.09 so it's not idle but does not seem like it's working very hard. There's 1101 packages total for a base install with no gui, does this even sound right?

Maybe something just went totally wrong with this particular install.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Ha, right now it finally ended. Guess I'll stick with that. Only 2.7GB used by the OS so guess it's not really bloat. I really don't get why it took so long though.

 

[Nothinman]

1101 packages? Wow, my Debian mail server VM has 394 packages installed and is under 2G after several months of use, I don't remember what it started out at.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Ha, right now it finally ended. Guess I'll stick with that. Only 2.7GB used by the OS so guess it's not really bloat. I really don't get why it took so long though.

its bloat for a non-gui install. thats nuts. must be a bug in the installer or something.

 

[Crusty]

Ubuntu server install is pretty minimal, but I use Debian for production servers.

 

[NoShangriLa]

I got similar result to Nothinman with Debian back when I built database servers for Oracle & DB2, and a fresh install would be somewhere between 370-400 packages (depends on features). After the database are install and updates it is often in the low mid 400 packages.

Curently I'm running a Lenny Debian box with default (games/multimedia/graphics/network/Office) Gnome, LXED, Open Box, TWM, and FXCE windows manages + Opera browser/Xchat at a total of 1032 packages.

PS. XFCE and LXED are awesome. My default windows manager is now FXCE (quick than Gnome and just as stable or more).

 

[Red Squirrel]

Oh right I totally forgot about debian.

Just curious though if anyone else has tried FC10 and had same results as me, or if it's just something that went totally wrong for me. I have a feeling what happens is mine went online and installed tons of stuff, as that's the only explanation to why it would of taken that long to install.

I did get mysql to work this time though so may as well stick with it. Could not get it working in CentOS 5.2 or FC9 - would not load.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Oh right I totally forgot about debian.

Just curious though if anyone else has tried FC10 and had same results as me, or if it's just something that went totally wrong for me. I have a feeling what happens is mine went online and installed tons of stuff, as that's the only explanation to why it would of taken that long to install.

I did get mysql to work this time though so may as well stick with it. Could not get it working in CentOS 5.2 or FC9 - would not load.

Fedora wasn't really designed with server use in mind, stick with CentOS if you want to run servers on a Redhat distro.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Really? I thought FC was basically Red Hat.

 

[little elvis]

12 hours for a Fedora install?? Something is definitely wrong.

CentOS is essentially Redhat Server, I think the CentOS team takes Redhat's released source code, removes all redhat branding and recompiles it.

I transitioned my Dad's company file server to Fedora 8 about 2 years ago, it's never crashed and works really well.

 

[Nothinman]

Really? I thought FC was basically Red Hat.

RHEL is based on FC whenever a major release is put out but that doesn't mean they're basically the same thing, RH makes a decent number of changes based on QA and support priorities.

I transitioned my Dad's company file server to Fedora 8 about 2 years ago, it's never crashed and works really well.

You should've moved them to CentOS, Fedora 8 won't be supported nearly as long as RHEL/CentOS.

 

[little elvis]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Really? I thought FC was basically Red Hat.

RHEL is based on FC whenever a major release is put out but that doesn't mean they're basically the same thing, RH makes a decent number of changes based on QA and support priorities.

I transitioned my Dad's company file server to Fedora 8 about 2 years ago, it's never crashed and works really well.

You should've moved them to CentOS, Fedora 8 won't be supported nearly as long as RHEL/CentOS.

I know, unfortunately I'm a 4 hour flight away now. I'll likely move them over to CentOS when I visit in June. That being said, Fedora has performed admirably.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: little elvis

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Really? I thought FC was basically Red Hat.

RHEL is based on FC whenever a major release is put out but that doesn't mean they're basically the same thing, RH makes a decent number of changes based on QA and support priorities.

I transitioned my Dad's company file server to Fedora 8 about 2 years ago, it's never crashed and works really well.

You should've moved them to CentOS, Fedora 8 won't be supported nearly as long as RHEL/CentOS.

I know, unfortunately I'm a 4 hour flight away now. I'll likely move them over to CentOS when I visit in June. That being said, Fedora has performed admirably.

There's no reason it shouldn't perform okay, it's just easier/faster to run/setup a server on CentOS then it is on Fedora