New Linux server
Saturday 11th November 2006
On 11th November 2006, at 05:37am PKT, Fawad Halim said:
I'm surprised that you chose Fedora. Fedora releases are only supported for 1.5 years. IMHO, CentOS (which is based on RHEL) would have been a safer choice given that RHEL releases are supported for 7 years.
On 11th November 2006, at 06:47am PKT, Adnan Siddiqi said:
It seems you got a dedicated machine, would like to share how much does it cost monthly/yearly and are you able to run background services via shell?
On 11th November 2006, at 16:42pm PKT, Sajjad said:
The server came with Fedora by default. Any other OS would have cost extra. The idea was that I'll get this package and remotely do a "forced" change to Slackware since I was repartitioning anyway. Now it looks too risky since I could lose all access to the server in the process.
It may be simpler to rip out Fedora's guts and replace whatever I can with CentOS or Slackware parts. Will give that a shot.
On 11th November 2006, at 17:22pm PKT, Sajjad said:
Yes, it is a dedicated machine and costs about $70 per month (plus installation charges of over $100).
What do you exactly mean by background services? I have full access to the server and can do whatever I want with it.
On 13th November 2006, at 15:13pm PKT, Adnan said:
Ok Sajjad thanks for reply, thats what I wanted to know whether you have full power or not. $75 sounds reasonable to me. Which provider are you using?
By background process I mean running a script in background by using & sign.
On 14th November 2006, at 23:14pm PKT, Atif said:
Which Fedora version is that?
On 16th November 2006, at 00:04am PKT, Sajjad said:
Adnan, I'm using cari.net. It's based in San Diego and seems ok.
If you have full control of a server, you can do anything with it, including running this kind of script.
Atif, it is running 64-bit Fedora Core 5. Not something I like or would recommend, but there was little choice.
On 16th November 2006, at 17:45pm PKT, Atif said:
What are the specs of the server machine?
On 17th November 2006, at 03:56am PKT, Sajjad said:
It is a Celeron D (64 bit) with 1GB RAM and 160GB of space. Not much by today's standards, but then again, my sites don't really require much and it is a pretty decent upgrade for them.
On 18th November 2006, at 11:51am PKT, Zaeem said:
Do you really think somebody would risk their business on something like Slackware? Hardware vendors are not going to support them at all if it's slackware and support costs will be increased. So long Slackware...:P
On 19th November 2006, at 04:22am PKT, Farhan said:
I use ASmallOrange.com, and they seem to be quite good. Why not go for a monthly shared package? For a simple blog, it does the job quite well. ASO is pretty cheap, $35/year, which includes domain registration as well. Tech support is awesome too.
On 20th November 2006, at 23:14pm PKT, Sajjad said:
Zaeem, it's my personal site and I don't have OS level support anyway. My personal preference is Slackware and I should have that option if I'm willing to pay for it.
As for Slackware's marketshare and future, it's not a commercial distro or one of the most common, but I'm sure a number of servers are based on it. Not everyone needs or wants a corporate look.
Farhan, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm too used to having my own server and haven't used shared hosting for over 4 years.
And it's not just for this blog. I also run my own email server and other sites that require customized tools (coded in Python for example), not to mention the Python blogging software running this blog. A shared solution would have been too restrictive to run all these things.