I have a Pentium 166mhz(mmx) computer, with around 380 mb of sdram, some old crappy vid card, 2x 10GB IDE hdds, CD-Rom, and a 3com nic. Id like to use this as a server for a home network comprised of 2 Win XP machines and a Win 2000 machine. It will have some light data backup of songs, etc. Also, it will be used as a print server, and extremely lightly as a http/ftp server. What Operating System do you suggest I use? Any specific Linux distro....made for older machines maybe? Also, I can legally obtain a copy of Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2000 Advanced Server if they would work better than linux in this situation. What do you suggest I use?
What Server OS for old system?
- Thread starter atomstryker
- Start date
as long as youre not planning on running X on that machine, jsut about any linux distro would work. I have some redhat 7.2 and 7.3 boxes that are p133 and p90, running light ftp and web services.
APT is a Debain package managment tool that is second to none. It allows
you to easily perform package installation, and upgrading.
Installing Debian Software with the Advanced Package Tool
Yeah, they're not the same thing. dpkg is the equivelant to rpm, apt is a wrapper that can use dpkg or rpm. However there are tons more (and probably less buggy) debian packages than rpm's.
I'd like to do about the same thing except with a k6-300. Can you access the same .mp3 file with various pc's at the same time?
Say with Debian. Would I also be able to make it pull some double duty as an internet gateway with 320/240kbps? Or would I need a different maquina?
it could easily double as a gateway, just remember that if you want it to be a secure firewall it should be doing nothing except firewall'ing
Debian is by far the best distro for a minimalist server on older hardware. The apt-get is great, and the install is a breeze. However if you've been nothing but a windows user for all your life with no command line or text-only apps like fdisk to back you up, installing debian can be intimidating.
Going from a OS which restricts you to cd-only installs with a standardized click and drool interface, to a distro that actually wants you to download it over the internet as the perfered way of installing it can be a bit of a culture shock to say the least and is fairly frustrating experiance.
Any sort of Linux distro would be great for this sort of thing, so if you don't want to let go of a familar interface go ahead and install anything you want. Just keep in mind that X windows is a dog on slower hardware, and you don't want to use it unless you realy need to. I usually don't even keep a monitor or keyboard attacted to my servers. I just do everything using ssh over the network, and if you only use windows on your desktop you can use a program called putty.exe as a ssh client. That's a great way to learn linux.
As far as rpm's vs apt-get. Rpm's are a mess, unless you use redhat-only sources of rpms you can get into trouble...
Anohter thing, A router firewall usually shouldn't be used as a server, it's just a security gotcha. basicly any pc router/firewall should be kept to a bare minimum, just enough to do it's job. The more services you have the more vunerable, but as long as you know what your doing you'll be find... Just remember running services like ftp, telnet, ssh, and/or p2p network stuff is gonna make you more of a target then the run-of-the-mill internet connection. Kinda like stupid people who thump lound stereos systems while driving around there own neighborhood, makes your system more attractive crackers and theives (and they probably know were you live)...
Any thing above a 486 computer will make a great file server or firewall/router. Hell, my dad's office used a 486dx prolient compaq server as a file sharing server for 50-60 people just untill a year or so ago... (then I got it). A 200mx apache webserver running static content can easily saturate a 10MB and maybe even a 100MB ethernet network with network activity, and a T1 line only goes 1.33Mb's or so.(providing active content like these forums is a entirely different can of worms though....) I use a 200MX for a router on my cable line with five or so computers behind it's firewall, and it runs fine for 2 years now with no problems.
Going from a OS which restricts you to cd-only installs with a standardized click and drool interface, to a distro that actually wants you to download it over the internet as the perfered way of installing it can be a bit of a culture shock to say the least and is fairly frustrating experiance.
Any sort of Linux distro would be great for this sort of thing, so if you don't want to let go of a familar interface go ahead and install anything you want. Just keep in mind that X windows is a dog on slower hardware, and you don't want to use it unless you realy need to. I usually don't even keep a monitor or keyboard attacted to my servers. I just do everything using ssh over the network, and if you only use windows on your desktop you can use a program called putty.exe as a ssh client. That's a great way to learn linux.
As far as rpm's vs apt-get. Rpm's are a mess, unless you use redhat-only sources of rpms you can get into trouble...
Anohter thing, A router firewall usually shouldn't be used as a server, it's just a security gotcha. basicly any pc router/firewall should be kept to a bare minimum, just enough to do it's job. The more services you have the more vunerable, but as long as you know what your doing you'll be find... Just remember running services like ftp, telnet, ssh, and/or p2p network stuff is gonna make you more of a target then the run-of-the-mill internet connection. Kinda like stupid people who thump lound stereos systems while driving around there own neighborhood, makes your system more attractive crackers and theives (and they probably know were you live)...
Any thing above a 486 computer will make a great file server or firewall/router. Hell, my dad's office used a 486dx prolient compaq server as a file sharing server for 50-60 people just untill a year or so ago... (then I got it). A 200mx apache webserver running static content can easily saturate a 10MB and maybe even a 100MB ethernet network with network activity, and a T1 line only goes 1.33Mb's or so.(providing active content like these forums is a entirely different can of worms though....) I use a 200MX for a router on my cable line with five or so computers behind it's firewall, and it runs fine for 2 years now with no problems.
A great relpy.
However a 386 or 486 should do just fine as a router/firewall. Infact I have been running my 486 DX66 with 8 megs of ram as a LRP firewall for over 2 years. And, It can even manage 3 Mbits VPN with 3DES encryption, which is more than quick enought for most home Cable/DSL solution.
Thank you guys for the info. I don't know what ssh is. Could one of you elaborate? I'm guessing it's something like PCanywhere? Not a clue how to do any of what you said, Drag. It'd be nice to be able to have a dedicated game server through it. SOUNDS like it's possible.
Has ne1 used Coyote Linux? Does it work well for games? I know they probly have a forum area for it but what a pita to go sign up @ ANOTHER place that might give out my email. (Probly not). Anyway, thanks for any and all tips.
-->>Pete
Has ne1 used Coyote Linux? Does it work well for games? I know they probly have a forum area for it but what a pita to go sign up @ ANOTHER place that might give out my email. (Probly not). Anyway, thanks for any and all tips.
-->>Pete
SSH = Secure Shell Host
It's kind of like telnet, in that it allows you to log in to a system remotely and get a command prompt, but it uses encryption (unlike telnet), so it can be much more secure if used properly.
Untrue, a firewall doing other things is no less inherently secure than a firewall that only does firewalling when properly configured. If you jail all the apps running on it, and run them as their own users, then there is no problem in running services on the box that is doing firewalling.
Just don't expect it to be as fast as a dedicated firewall, especially if you start sticking in stateful inspection rules.
As for the distribution, you're (from the sounds of it) better off sticking with an easy to use distribution. My immediate suggestion would be a minimalist Slackware 8.1 install and then add in the packages you want to run, but that's a reasonably complicated process, and requires a level of comfort with the operating system that not a lot of people have.
PS: SSH stands only for Secure SHell. It's also best if you configure it using keypair authentication, instead of password authentication. It's much harder to bruteforce a key than it is to bruteforce a password.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter