# What server os can I get by with?



## johnspack (Nov 24, 2017)

I've been running a remote server in the states for many years now,  but we are stepping it up.  Just upgraded to a 10gb/s connection,  and are getting ready to set up websites,  gaming and teamspeak servers ect.  It won't be too heavy at first.  But I need a reliable os to handle the new,  probably much higher traffic.  Currently running win7 home,  which plagues me constantly,  I'm trying to convince the owner to upgrade to a server os,  but he's complaining about the price.  So what can I use that won't cost an arm and a leg that will make my life easier?


----------



## Red_Machine (Nov 24, 2017)

Home Server 2011?


----------



## johnspack (Nov 24, 2017)

Hmm,  didn't think of that one!


----------



## Red_Machine (Nov 24, 2017)

I have a spare license key for it if you can't find a copy anywhere.  We can discuss a price in PMs if you decide it's suitable for your needs.


----------



## johnspack (Nov 24, 2017)

Well it will be for commercial purposes,  so I definitely will need a key.  I may be pming you soon.


----------



## Kursah (Nov 28, 2017)

johnspack said:


> I've been running a remote server in the states for many years now,  but we are stepping it up.  Just upgraded to a 10gb/s connection,  and are getting ready to set up websites,  gaming and teamspeak servers ect.  It won't be too heavy at first.  But I need a reliable os to handle the new,  probably much higher traffic.  Currently running win7 home,  which plagues me constantly,  I'm trying to convince the owner to upgrade to a server os,  but he's complaining about the price.  So what can I use that won't cost an arm and a leg that will make my life easier?



Go Linux server if want free and have time to learn it. It is a good way to go but can take a lot of time and headache to achieve the final results one would seek. Debian and Ubuntu Server are good places to start IMHO for those less familiar with Linux server environments. You might check out CentOS as well.

Go Windows Server 2012R2 or 2016 if you want a Windows server OS for a commercial environment. SBS and Home Server versions have restrictions that may or may not be an issue for you in a hosted environment, and generally I've seen more issues with those versions than not. But if you get a good deal or free on a key from above, go for it! It'll still likely be better than hosting those services on a Windows 7 Home installation.

Complaining about the price makes little difference if the owner is expecting enterprise-grade results. If he expects those results, he needs to pay for it, period. That's like buying a Fiat from 1970 and expecting it to run like the brand new La Ferrari. 

You can however run Windows Server 2012R2 unactivated using a KMS key from Microsoft (Google "Microsoft KMS Key"), and it will allow operation and OS security updates. You will be somewhat limited on other product updates, and if your business faces a Microsoft audit, will be fined for not having a license or any CAL's for the environment you're in. 

There are some registry tweaks you can make to Windows 7 (I believe Pro) that can allow it to be a better file server. Frankly I'd go with Server 2012R2, it's stable, aging well, and widely supported still. 

I run 2012R2 Datacenter (key from my College IT courses years ago), and have about 8-12 VM's. I have Plex, TeamSpeak3, several Minecraft servers in one MineOS VM, website, OpenVPN, PFSense, WDS test VM's, etc. on various deployments. Some VM's are Server 2012R2, some are Linux Server. A good way to go is to setup Hyper-V and run your actual server that hosts your services as VM, then you can backup the VM to a NAS or at least USB hard drive, so if the physical "core" server kicks the bucket, you can spool up the VM on another physical server and get back up and running much faster. 

You don't need a separate VM for each task or hosted situation, it might not hurt to split some of them up. I could run 3-5VM's in my lab environment to do all the things I do with 8-12. 

Do you plan to host a domain environment as well?


----------



## jaggerwild (Nov 28, 2017)

Doesn't STEAM offer an OS for running servers off of? Or your not running a steam game I assume? What about Ubuntu, or similar?


----------



## stinger608 (Nov 28, 2017)

@johnspack , if you are looking for a professional server OS and Linux isn't going to work, tell your employer that I have a Server 2012R2 Datacenter spare key. 

If that is something he or she would be interested in, I'd make you a smoking deal on the key. PM if interested and we can discuss.


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 29, 2017)

Server 2012 has been great. As for Linux based OSes CentOS is the best one. Most datacenters use it. That and RHEL.

If you need help with cpanel on cent let me know.


----------



## johnspack (Dec 2, 2017)

Sorry,  stupid server went down,  teamviewer stopped working.  I need rdp!  I may pm you stinger shortly...  I'm getting tired of this...


----------



## stinger608 (Dec 10, 2017)

Also, @johnspack , I just responded to your PM with an incredible deal from a pal of mine!!!!!!!


----------



## johnspack (Dec 16, 2017)

Such a dam good deal!  But he's cheap.  And now I want the server under linux.  Windows is so evil.  I just hate windows so much now.....  if I could just finish figuring out all the wine crap to
run all the windows servers...  very close now too.  I'm having so much fun with ubuntu,  I keep forgetting I'm supposed to be learning crap for my boss.... but so close now.
Ubuntu really is fantastic,  both as a client and as a server.


----------



## StrayKAT (Dec 16, 2017)

remixedcat said:


> Server 2012 has been great. As for Linux based OSes CentOS is the best one. Most datacenters use it. That and RHEL.
> 
> If you need help with cpanel on cent let me know.



Datacenters really use it? Not skeptical. Just surprised they wouldn't lean more towards Red Hat (for support).


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 16, 2017)

remixedcat said:


> Server 2012 has been great. As for Linux based OSes CentOS is the best one. Most datacenters use it. That and RHEL.
> 
> If you need help with cpanel on cent let me know.



Actually. The server market is dominated by Windows. Only certain things are Linux based and that usually falls to web hosting. Most of it is actually virtualized too. Not many of us install bare metal.

Here are the 2016 Stats for those curious. https://community.spiceworks.com/networking/articles/2462-server-virtualization-and-os-trends

EDIT: While CENT is used RHEL and SUSE actually make up most of the linux usage.


----------



## notb (Dec 16, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> Datacenters really use it? Not skeptical. Just surprised they wouldn't lean more towards Red Hat (for support).


CentOS is clearly not in top 3 most used and I doubt it would make to top 5, considering there are: Windows Server, RHEL (obviously), SUSE, Oracle Linux and - lately - Ubuntu Server.

Dell, Lenovo and HP by default won't even provide CentOS as factory-installed OS. Just the 5 above + hypervisors.

I don't see why any datacenter manager would replace an enterprise-level OS with a community-driven one. It basically means he's taking the risk on his team, so he would have to employ additional people and so on. Clearly, not a cheap option. And not the safest one.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 16, 2017)

ubuntu 16.04 or whatever the latest is.

Ubuntu is stable, has a shit ton of community support and guides out there. And it's free.

I know for a fact you can host websites, game servers (it's steam module is fairly easy to use as well), and TS/Mumble from it with ease. You can run it using the desktop platform but I'd recommend getting comfortable with the CLI and using that.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 16, 2017)

notb said:


> CentOS is clearly not in top 3 most used and I doubt it would make to top 4, considering there are: Windows Server, RHEL (obviously), SUSE, Oracle Linux and - lately - Ubuntu Server.
> 
> Dell, Lenovo and HP by default won't even provide CentOS as factory-installed OS. Just the 5 above + hypervisors.
> 
> I don't see why any datacenter manager would replace an enterprise-level OS with a community-driven one. It basically means he's taking the risk on his team, so he would have to employ additional people and so on. Clearly, not a cheap option. And not the safest one.



Pretty much. Risk assessment is that its a bad idea. Anything other then a plaything is payed for when services are on the line. Especially for a biz.


----------



## StrayKAT (Dec 16, 2017)

notb said:


> CentOS is clearly not in top 3 most used and I doubt it would make to top 5, considering there are: Windows Server, RHEL (obviously), SUSE, Oracle Linux and - lately - Ubuntu Server.
> 
> Dell, Lenovo and HP by default won't even provide CentOS as factory-installed OS. Just the 5 above + hypervisors.
> 
> I don't see why any datacenter manager would replace an enterprise-level OS with a community-driven one. It basically means he's taking the risk on his team, so he would have to employ additional people and so on. Clearly, not a cheap option. And not the safest one.



Cool. I didn't know Oracle Linux was that accepted now though... but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## remixedcat (Dec 17, 2017)




----------



## notb (Dec 17, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> Cool. I didn't know Oracle Linux was that accepted now though... but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


Oracle Linux is very useful combined with Oracle DB. Nice tools for DB management, nice integration. It also makes Oracle's DB support a bit easier. And it's helping during audits as well.
Other than that, it's just a modified RHEL. So there's not much sense in getting it without the DB.



remixedcat said:


> [cut]


Source:
https://news.netcraft.com/archives/...e-hosting-company-sites-in-november-2017.html
Still, I doubt this is useful for OP.
If you look at reports from previous 2 months, you'll see they're pretty random. I.e. this shows some 10 lucky winners from possibly hundreds of reliable providers.
And f course they don't inform which distro is used...

And some more statistics on this site can be found here (still hardly relevant in this discussion, but at least interesting ):
https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/10/26/october-2017-web-server-survey-13.html
It lists host engines and when you contemplate that most (including the leading Apache and nginx) can run on Windows - and they most likely do in some cases - it just shows how underestimated Windows position is. People tend to think it's just Linux out there.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 17, 2017)

remixedcat said:


> View attachment 94917



No that’s hosting companies. Not data centers. In data centers you can choose what you are going to run. With hosting companies sometimes you get a choice of OS (all *nix based) but generally are just provided a control panel for managing it so teenagers dont need to know BSD to get there blog or minecraft server running. Hosting companies also save a ton on licensing fees this way.  It’s cheaper. We are talking about doing actual work with servers though. Not hosting a blog and having "cpanels".


----------



## johnspack (Dec 18, 2017)

Darn,  so even linux servers,  except Ubuntu,  cost money.  And looks like I have the choice between rhel and suse enterprise.  Wish I could test out both to see which one works the best.  Is there any kind of comparison distro I could try?  Redhat based free distros don't exsist I don't think,  and I have Leap,  but that's not server.....


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 19, 2017)

johnspack said:


> Darn,  so even linux servers,  except Ubuntu,  cost money.  And looks like I have the choice between rhel and suse enterprise.  Wish I could test out both to see which one works the best.  Is there any kind of comparison distro I could try?  Redhat based free distros don't exsist I don't think,  and I have Leap,  but that's not server.....



Fedora or CENT are as close as you are going to get to RHEL


----------



## johnspack (Dec 20, 2017)

Yeah,  testing Fedora now,  will grab Cent next.  Also have reached out to Rh sales and will be phoning them for more info.  Is having xserver running that bad on a server?
There are a lot of graphical apps that if I could run would make the server more usable....


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 21, 2017)

johnspack said:


> Yeah,  testing Fedora now,  will grab Cent next.  Also have reached out to Rh sales and will be phoning them for more info.  Is having xserver running that bad on a server?
> There are a lot of graphical apps that if I could run would make the server more usable....



Yes and No. You will get new Admins that think no xserver is old hat . You will have Old sysadmins that like the GUI. The reality is much more straight forward.

Given time I am MUCH faster at troublshooting and fixing problems via CLI. Even on my windows servers I love the GUI but im always in powershell. I know how to do it through the interfaces its just faster.

Secondly, some issues do NOT have a way to fix via GUI and if you are seriously running a production server reformatting is usually NOT an option.

Thirdly, xservers and GUI in general even in windows land while stable because of there server nature still have quirks. Default boxes being checked during an install but not actually flagged  because "checked" is just how the box looks by default. GUI crashing because server is under load, glitches because video rendering is poor on baked in ASPEED controllers or remote sessions are glichy and slow because video frame buffer is bugged.

Fourth space and process usage. 

PRetty much when the shit hits the fan and people are on the phone or IMing you because something isnt working sometimes its just easier to see


```
>$ What is fucked?
>$ This is broken
>$ This is broken --help
>$ To fix things that are %Broken% you need to restart service X and reconfigure serviceX.ini to include the line "Dont run out of memory"
```

Of course. you could ALWAYS experiment yourself. install one see if you like it. blah blah blah and otherwise uninstall it if you think you are proficient enough to use CLI, you can even do it backwards and use CLI first. While I reccomend its usage in the *nix world above any kind of xserver I wasnt awesome at BSD CLI my entire life. I once used a GUI. No one can fault you either way. I can only point out the dangers. Part of being a system administrator is assessing risk and owning it if you mess up.


----------



## johnspack (Dec 21, 2017)

Nice info, now I  know what to do...  I think.  Linux itself is kind of an experiment as well,  just a mostly successful one.  I know how to telnet into my linux servers,  so I guess I'll be doing most of my work with CLI.  Pain in butt to run certain windows servers that need a bit of graphical support under linux,  but apparently it can be done.    I will push forward and keep learning.  Seems to be worth it...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 21, 2017)

johnspack said:


> Nice info, now I  know what to do...  I think.  Linux itself is kind of an experiment as well,  just a mostly successful one.  I know how to telnet into my linux servers,  so I guess I'll be doing most of my work with CLI.  Pain in butt to run certain windows servers that need a bit of graphical support under linux,  but apparently it can be done.    I will push forward and keep learning.  Seems to be worth it...


Us in the Linux community tend to use SSH for this kind of thing. Telnet is what I use if I want to see if a port is open and behaving as it should (like a SMTP server.) Most linux server installations don't have a GUI. I've managed just about every Linux box I've touched through the CLI and SSH. I also wouldn't call Linux for servers an experiment because that's one of Linux' biggest uses. If anything the desktop experience is a little more green than anything else. Ubuntu tends to be my go-to distro for both desktop and server. Rarely I will use plain Debian but, it tends to be more out of date than Ubuntu.


----------



## johnspack (Dec 23, 2017)

Yeah,  ssh for linux.  Haven't used telnet protocol.  Was just thinking about it because you can use a telnet client to do ssh...  I've been playing with Centos,  but there are just so many missing dependencies and you  have to do a lot of compiling to install anything.  I need a server that can just do what I need it to do,  not build or rpm --rebuild every dam  dependency before I can use an app.  Is Rhel ent the same way?  I think even Fedora is more complete.  More testing to do,  arg....


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 23, 2017)

You could see if ubuntu or debian fits you better. Worst case scenario you can call up and pay for canonical support. I reccomend staying with LTS builds though.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 23, 2017)

Kursah said:


> You can however run Windows Server 2012R2 unactivated using a KMS key from Microsoft (Google "Microsoft KMS Key"), and it will allow operation and OS security updates. You will be somewhat limited on other product updates, and if your business faces a Microsoft audit, will be fined for not having a license or any CAL's for the environment you're in.


For a business/commercial entity, that is just not an option or worth the risk. Of course, a Microsoft audit requires due process, EULA or not.

EDIT; @johnspack I just looked it up to refresh the memory, Windows Server 2012 is being supported until 2023 when Microsoft EOL's it. That's a good amount of time for deployment given the reasonable cost at this time. Amazon currently has it for under $400; https://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Server-2012-Essentials/dp/B00GAIBC0I
That version has a 25 user limit on up to 50 systems, no CAL's required.


----------



## Kursah (Dec 23, 2017)

Yep and that alone makes it worth it to stay legit. Definitely not worth failing an audit over and MS has really stepped up this past year on that front in this area.

But to test how it works in an environment for I believe 180-days, it would be fine irrc. Could be 90 though. 

I use my 2012R2 Data center key on my single core + VMs for my home lab that I obtained during college. Between using it to study for my MCSA and just hosting stuff for my wife and kids it's been a very good experience.


----------



## johnspack (Dec 23, 2017)

But what if it is only to be used as a web server,  no users.  Only a server admin running it remotely.  What good is 25 seats to me?  And Canonical support,  I didn't know that existed.  Something else I need to go research now.  And yes,  it must be fully legit,  as commercial enterprises will eventually be done on it.  So no trials,  demos...  has to be a full fledged server os for net applications.  I just have to figure out what that will be,  must be cheap,  reliable,  and do what is needed.  For some reason,  that doesn't seem to be any easy prospect,  or a cheap one.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 23, 2017)

johnspack said:


> But what if it is only to be used as a web server,  no users.  Only a server admin running it remotely.  What good is 25 seats to me?  And Canonical support,  I didn't know that existed.  Something else I need to go research now.  And yes,  it must be fully legit,  as commercial enterprises will eventually be done on it.  So no trials,  demos...  has to be a full fledged server os for net applications.  I just have to figure out what that will be,  must be cheap,  reliable,  and do what is needed.  For some reason,  that doesn't seem to be any easy prospect,  or a cheap one.


The number of users was only a reference. It will run just fine as an actual web server. Part of it's design. But if Linux appeals to you, just know that it will be a good idea to sign up for a support service of some kind as there is a learning curve. But Ubuntu Server is an excellent choice with a boat-load of community and business support.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 23, 2017)

lexluthermiester said:


> But Ubuntu Server is an excellent choice with a boat-load of community and business support.


Most of the boxes  I've had to deal with on the cloud typically run Ubuntu Server. I have Ubuntu Server on my 3820 which is crunching as well, then there is Ubuntu running on my desktop. The reality is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the server variant of Ubuntu and a minimal installation. The only real difference is which packages are installed at installation. Server and minimum installs put just the barebones on. You can install all the same packages as the desktop version but, it doesn't even ship with a GUI (because it's a waste of memory if it's not used.)


johnspack said:


> But what if it is only to be used as a web server,  no users.  Only a server admin running it remotely.  What good is 25 seats to me?  And Canonical support,  I didn't know that existed.  Something else I need to go research now.  And yes,  it must be fully legit,  as commercial enterprises will eventually be done on it.  So no trials,  demos...  has to be a full fledged server os for net applications.  I just have to figure out what that will be,  must be cheap,  reliable,  and do what is needed.  For some reason,  that doesn't seem to be any easy prospect,  or a cheap one.


I suspect that you don't need canonical support unless you go really far down the rabit hole, start a business, and become profitable where slowly resolving issues could cost you a lot of money. With that said, i highly suggest giving Ubuntu Server a whack.


----------



## johnspack (Dec 24, 2017)

Yeah, I think I'll keep learning Ubuntu server.  If Rhel is anything like Centos,  I'd rather not deal with that pain.  Anything Debian based seems easy to deal with.  I just have to finish mastering wine so I can run any windows services I need,  and do that without any gui assistance.    Starting to read stuff that tells you exactly how to do that.  And that rabbit hole...  I'm waaaay in!


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 24, 2017)

johnspack said:


> Yeah, I think I'll keep learning Ubuntu server.  If Rhel is anything like Centos,  I'd rather not deal with that pain.  Anything Debian based seems easy to deal with.  I just have to finish mastering wine so I can run any windows services I need,  and do that without any gui assistance.    Starting to read stuff that tells you exactly how to do that.  And that rabbit hole...  I'm waaaay in!



Thats spirited beginner. you gotta run headless BSD servers not shower for a week and drink straight coffee out of a mug you never wash. then ill take you out for a beer. We gotta get you to

"does my beard just itch or are there animals living in it?"


----------



## johnspack (Dec 24, 2017)

Oh I just saw the most awesome thing....  install w3m on ubuntu server,  and actually browsed tpu from the command line!  It works!   Now I don't question what linux can do.....


----------



## notb (Dec 30, 2017)

johnspack said:


> Oh I just saw the most awesome thing....  install w3m on ubuntu server,  and actually browsed tpu from the command line!  It works!   Now I don't question what linux can do.....


Well... what exactly is so great about it? 
I've used text-based web browsers in the past a lot - mostly for web crawling (back when web pages used to be static and it made sense...). But there is really nothing special about it.
You can find a text-based browser for any platform.

So the question is: why do we have good text-based browsers for Linux and not so many for Windows? The explanation is pretty simple, but almost 25 years old.

The original browser - WorldWideWeb, released in 1991 (before the first Linux kernel!) - was graphical. However, it only worked on NeXT. The second one (and first cross-platform) - Line Mode Browser - was indeed text-based, because... guys at CERN didn't know how to write a graphical one for other platforms. 
In 1992 Lynx was released on the other side of Atlantic and it became the default Linux browser (and still is included in most distributions).
But everything changed in 1993. A mainstream, user-friendly browser appeared: Mosaic. It was a hit on Windows and Mac OS, which already had decent GUIs.
In 1994 we got Netscape Navigator and in 1995: Internet Explorer. As a result text-based browsers on these platforms became pretty much extinct... before www actually became a thing for most humans.
And while Mosaic and NN also worked on Linux, many Linux users didn't use a GUI, so text-based browsers survived and new ones were developed (like w3m).
Because of low / no demand, w3m was never ported to Windows in a civilized way (you need Cygwin) and nothing similar was written for Windows (at least not for mainstream use).


----------



## johnspack (Feb 4, 2018)

Well,  I have to return to this..  finally convinced the owner to upgrade.  Looking at win10 enterprise now.  Think we'll be installing it shortly.  Now I see there is e3 and e5 versions of it,  what the hell?
I'll probably tell him to go with e3.  I can control the updates fully in enterprise right?


----------



## stinger608 (Feb 5, 2018)

johnspack said:


> I can control the updates fully in enterprise right?



Yep, you can


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 5, 2018)

stinger608 said:


> Yep, you can



As someone who uses enterprise, I've yet to see any evidence updates can be controlled.

I know what they said.  I also know I have never really had that option.


----------



## johnspack (Feb 5, 2018)

Well crap,  that sucks.  I now have to step up my linux learning.  Windows is just such shit.  Buying a usb dac for my main box so I don't have to host linux vms on windows for the dam sound
anymore.  Linux has far better network support,  is far more robust,  gets security updates the day they come out,  not once a month....   yep,  I hate windows.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> As someone who uses enterprise, I've yet to see any evidence updates can be controlled.


I'm also someone who uses a version of Win10 Enterprise. The LTSB version most definately allows full control of updates. If nothing else, you can disable the BITS & Update services except when you want to update, a technique that applies to all versions of 10.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 7, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> The LTSB version most definately allows full control of updates.



Wha?

Maybe I need to take a second look...  currently running bog standard enterprise due to a work requirement.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 7, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Maybe I need to take a second look...  currently running bog standard enterprise due to a work requirement.


Do take a look at it. I'm currently running it as a test platform for desktop use. Totally not what MS intended it for, but the constant changes to the UI and feature-set of the standard 10 irritate the living crap out of me. That's not even mentioning that the Windows Store, Apps & even Edge are not present and Cortana is disabled by default(at least on the iso I'm using).


----------



## johnspack (Feb 8, 2018)

I'll have to make sure he gets the right one then.  He is going to install enterprise on it,  so hope it doesn't annoy me too much to use....


----------



## SamirD (Mar 10, 2018)

If the windows updates are what's causing the problems.  Shut them off (or don't) and install reboot restore or deep freeze to make the system solid and consistant.  You won't have all the security updates, but you can just reboot and shake the bugs out.  Besides, I almost wonder what's causing more problems these days--the updates or the bugs themselves.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 10, 2018)

SamirD said:


> the updates or the bugs themselves.


My vote is both about equally.


----------

