Ubuntu Server on a flash drive?

[jaydee]

I just bought an HP Proliant NAS for $190 to (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/e...18-4237917-4248009-5153252-5153253.html?dnr=1)

I've never had or configured one of these guys before, so let me know if I've got this all wrong. It doesn't come with an OS, and I want to save all four HD bays for storage, I assume I'll need some sort of server OS even though it's only used for storage and media streaming, correct?

I was wondering if it would be advisable to install Ubuntu 11.10 server on a ~4-8GB flash drive and run headless most of the time. Would that be big/fast enough? Am I thinking about this the right way?

Thanks.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't know anything about that unit, but if it can boot to USB you can run the server off a flash drive.

 

[xSauronx]

can't see why it should be an issue, just find a flash drive with good reviews on its speed.

i run vmware esxi off a flash drive and it does just fine.

 

[LurchFrinky]

I just built a NAS box from old parts and decided to use FreeNAS. During the installation, FreeNAS actually recommends booting from a flash drive and freeing up all of the hard drives for storage.
It doesn't even need to be a large or fast drive really. Assuming it will be on 24/7, you don't need to worry about boot times and the OS is loaded into memory anyway.

 

[jaydee]

Thanks guys. Just bought a 8GB Patriot drive for $12 on newegg, should come in, in a few days.

Also after doing some research, I think I'll install Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu Server.

 

[Jodell88]

Thanks guys. Just bought a 8GB Patriot drive for $12 on newegg, should come in, in a few days.

Also after doing some research, I think I'll install Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu Server.

Any specific reason? A server oriented OS would be better I think.

 

[lxskllr]

Any specific reason? A server oriented OS would be better I think.

I can't answer for the OP, but I would do the same. Having a gui backup would make me feel better about the whole thing. It's the same O/S, just plus or minus a few bits, and having a desktop available makes a nice security blanket.

 

[jaydee]

Any specific reason? A server oriented OS would be better I think.

Ubuntu's server editions aren't as user friendly from what I hear (no GUI)? Not a huge Linux guy here, haven't used Ubuntu since 2008 or so. This NAS should have the resources to handle xubuntu and I percieve that I can install any/all server functions on Xubuntu that come with Ubuntu server.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2220676

 

[themillak]

i haven't played with ubuntu server much but my impression of it was that it was like their regular distros except without any gui and with some extra network "tasks" (taking the wording from aptitude) that aren't enabled by default.

 

[dealcorn]

First, you can put pretty much any GUI you want on Ubuntu Server using Aptitude and the repository even if it is not part of the initial install. Second, it looks to me like your server has more than adequate horsepower to handle any GUI you want. Third, in my opinion it is a boo boo not to run headless and only access the box through ssh.

What are you trying to do on the server that you find a recurring need to muck about using a GUI? There is definitely some work to be done when you set up a server (like an iptables firewall, configuration of mail so when something interesting happens the server sends you an e-mail at an account you actually check daily, and configuration of sensors so the computer tells you if there is a problem). After a server is set up default policy should be ignore it and let the server do its own thing. If you are in there mucking about daily there is a good chance you will make some error that causes a problem you do not want. Also, if you go headless you can likely get by with a 1 GB flash drive rather than your wildly extravagant puchase of an 8 GB flash drive for $12.

 

[jaydee]

Thank you for your detailed input.

First, you can put pretty much any GUI you want on Ubuntu Server using Aptitude and the repository even if it is not part of the initial install. Second, it looks to me like your server has more than adequate horsepower to handle any GUI you want. Third, in my opinion it is a boo boo not to run headless and only access the box through ssh.

I do plan on running headless.

What are you trying to do on the server that you find a recurring need to muck about using a GUI?

Hopefully nothing

There is definitely some work to be done when you set up a server (like an iptables firewall, configuration of mail so when something interesting happens the server sends you an e-mail at an account you actually check daily, and configuration of sensors so the computer tells you if there is a problem). After a server is set up default policy should be ignore it and let the server do its own thing. If you are in there mucking about daily there is a good chance you will make some error that causes a problem you do not want.

I was just thinking about the initial setup and occasional maintenance, because I agree with all your points. But, if I have the resources to run a GUI, why not? I figure it will probably help with setting up (like I said, I don't have a large *nix background), and as far as I know, the tradeoff is... nothing? Is there a downside of having Ubuntu/Xubuntu as opposed to Ubuntu Server? Other than needing more resources (which I have available)? Is it less stable?

Also, if you go headless you can likely get by with a 1 GB flash drive rather than your wildly extravagant puchase of an 8 GB flash drive for $12.

I realize this as well, but in the event said flash drive were to be repurposed for whatever reason, the extra $6 for 8GB as opposed to 2GB are fairly inconsequential.

 

[PreferLinux]

The only downside could be that they start the GUI automatically, and you would have to disable it or it will be using resources. But that's a very minor issue.