# Building a Server need help



## zaqwsx (Mar 4, 2013)

Hey guys so my current project at the moment is building a server that will host a few websites, game server and file sharing. Here are the parts I have to work with.

Asus K8N-DRE Server board
2x AMD Opteron 275 dual core 2.2ghz cpus
16gb if ddr 400 ram
Adata 128gb ssd
3x Seagate 1tb drives

As far as software I have windows server 2012 and a bunch more at my disposal all are legal.

My current internet is dynamic IP FIOS 25down 25up and I'm going to upgrade it to static IP FIOS 50down 25up that will be the coming months once the server is up and running correctly.

So this came from a friend of mine who owns a big company running a bunch of servers:

Mike
"Well if the server is a retail one, I would go with VMware and break stuff up. The web server and games server are both presumable public. By breaking things up on different 'computers' you can cut down on risk of attack and compromise of your important stuff. If he is buying a new OEM server and it is on the HCL this is easy. If he is building from scratch he can look at forums for suggestions on supported parts that you can buy retail that will still work with VMware. I would install VMware on the server to the SSD. I would then load two or three OS's. I would put a really small Ubuntu LAMP server on the SSD for the website. It's very light weight and rocks for web hosting. By breaking this off you can forward one port to the webserver and keep everything else safe. I would then install server 2008 with the "c" drive on residing on the SSD (you should have a good 50gb still for that). Then mount the three TB raid for storage  to VMware and hack off a few TB for the DATA disk on the server OS for the files and such. You can use server 2008 as a game server too if you want. What I would do is build a small windows 7 box entirely on the 3tb array. Again assuming that this is public, it isolates it and ensures the best compatibility with the game makers. In my experience most don't support server OSs directly.

If VMware is out of the picture. Server 2008 is going to host files fine, will likely work with more games than any other OS (windows 7 kernel) and has IIS 7 so you can run the latest PHP."

So I am trying to understand all of this just a lot of stuff to take in especially with college but I have my break coming up so I plan on getting it running then just need some advice and help. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks again guys!

(PICS TO COME SOON)


----------



## kn00tcn (Mar 4, 2013)

separating is indeed a nice idea (that & i dont like dealing with website hosting that's not linux)

what specific games & how complex websites?


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 4, 2013)

I'm going to host a minecraft server for my baby brother that's the first game not sure on other ones at the moment.

Website I have one lined up for a pediatric office for my doctor friend. Im probably going to make a blog website from me, My one friend will also make a site for himself too, and we may get his dad to switch his site to our server its a bails bondman website. And probably a few more sites also unsure yet.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 4, 2013)

You checked with the FIOS agreement that your not breaking of their rules running dedicated servers ?.  I know Comcast has a such rule but not to sure about your FIOS.


----------



## Frick (Mar 4, 2013)

AsRock said:


> You checked with the FIOS agreement that your not breaking of their rules running dedicated servers ?.  I know Comcast has a such rule but not to sure about your FIOS.



Wait what? They do that?


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 4, 2013)

Frick said:


> Wait what? They do that?



Yeah, some ISPs go so far to block new port 80 packets going to your IP address, while allowing outgoing new port 80 packets as well as established or related packets returning to your network. It's a routing thing and it's annoying. Comcast doesn't block port 80 and they honestly don't care unless you start exceeding your bandwidth cap and at that point you really should sign up for business class which gives you better speeds with higher boost speeds and priority when the network fails. They also expect you to be hosting and they don't impose a bandwidth cap. So it really depends on the service you sign up for.



AsRock said:


> I know Comcast has a such rule but not to sure about your FIOS.



They don't care all that much unless you're using a lot of bandwidth or an exorbitant amount of upstream, but as I said before. At that point you really should be consider business class if you're serious about hosting and if Comcast contacts you and you tell them what you want to do they will help you out.


----------



## Sinzia (Mar 4, 2013)

Doctors office stuff? Be aware of HIPAA restrictions and any info that might be stored on that machine from the docs office.

lawsuits suck. 

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 4, 2013)

AsRock said:


> You checked with the FIOS agreement that your not breaking of their rules running dedicated servers ?.  I know Comcast has a such rule but not to sure about your FIOS.



I'm not really sure to tell you but I am switching to business class so a few months wont hurt for testing.



Sinzia said:


> Doctors office stuff? Be aware of HIPAA restrictions and any info that might be stored on that machine from the docs office.
> 
> lawsuits suck.
> 
> http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/



And I am HIPAA certified for his office I do major work. The website though will not have any info like that it is just for advertisement and mostly about him like a bio.


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 21, 2013)

So I just ordered a new board its the same one except rev 1.05g which has a sata 2 controller any way it came with this extra card the sits in the mini I/o slot. Their is a link below. Was wondering is someone can shed some light on what it might be? Thanks. 

http://support.asus.com/faq/list.aspx?SLanguage=en&p=5&m=ASMB2&s=9&hashedid=n/a&os=


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 24, 2013)

Anyone?


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 24, 2013)

It's a management card. It adds functionality in cases where you're going to be managing a lot of systems in a distributed network.

I doubt that you will need it and it isn't worth a whole lot either. I have a 1U server sitting in the closet with dual 3.2ghz xeons that has a bigger version of it.


----------



## Vario (Mar 24, 2013)

For what its worth, if your custom server doesn't have the juice ... I always see decent looking commercial servers on craigslist, hp or dell dual xeons etc $300-500.


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 31, 2013)

Thanks guys!

Another question so I installed windows server 2012 and installed VMware player and I am going to install Ubuntu LAMP in VMware player. Their are some network settings though that I am unsure off.

Bridged, NAT, and Host-only.

Which one should be used for 24/7 web server and to give me protection in my internal home network.

Thanks again guys!


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 31, 2013)

Not sure what you mean?


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 31, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> Another question so I installed windows server 2012 and installed VMware player and I am going to install Ubuntu LAMP in VMware player. Their are some network settings though that I am unsure off.
> 
> Bridged, NAT, and Host-only.
> 
> Which one should be used for 24/7 web server and to give me protection in my internal home network.



The CPUs you picked out do not support hardware virtualization (at least from what I read,) if you're going the VM route, then you should get better hardware.

For hosting you want bridged, unless you have a dedicated Ethernet or network adapter for it. It's the only option where your VM gets an IP on your network. NAT and Host-Only do exactly as they say they do. NAT puts you on an internal network inside the computer that uses NAT to resolve addresses (can't host off it,) and Host-Only is an internal network that only VMs and the Host can communicate with. This is nice if there is a lot of communication between the VM and the host or the VM and other VMs.


----------



## Geofrancis (Mar 31, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> The CPUs you picked out do not support hardware virtualization (at least from what I read,) if you're going the VM route, then you should get better hardware.
> 
> For hosting you want bridged, unless you have a dedicated Ethernet or network adapter for it. It's the only option where your VM gets an IP on your network. NAT and Host-Only do exactly as they say they do. NAT puts you on an internal network inside the computer that uses NAT to resolve addresses (can't host off it,) and Host-Only is an internal network that only VMs and the Host can communicate with. This is nice if there is a lot of communication between the VM and the host or the VM and other VMs.



Yea I just checked them out the processor he is using is a first generation K8 opteron based on a 939 Athlon 64 x2 this was a generation before AMD-V hardware virtualisation. 

The problem with this is the virtual performance will be a fraction of your processors performance due to the huge overhead because Without hardware acceleration your essentially emulating the processor hardware in software.

Most socket am3 motherboards also support ecc ram. You would have been easier to just go with a basic am3 box, quad and a few gb of ecc ram. It would support VMware or any other flavour of virtualisation and out perform the server you have now.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 31, 2013)

Geofrancis said:


> Most socket am3 motherboards also support ecc ram.



This is the first time I've heard this. Where did you find this? I'm a bit skeptical to say that this is true.

Also, it's not about the motherboard supporting it as much as it is about the CPU and the IMC supporting it.


----------



## Geofrancis (Mar 31, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> This is the first time I've heard this. Where did you find this? I'm a bit skeptical to say that this is true.
> 
> Also, it's not about the motherboard supporting it as much as it is about the CPU and the IMC supporting it.



All am3 processors support ecc unbuffered ram but its up to motherboard manufacturers support it In the bios. My asus board and my last Foxconn am3 board supported it I just wish my servers MSI 890fx-GD70 did.

Only intel makes the distinction that celeron,pentium,i3,i5,i7 has no ecc and that you have to pay for server parts and a Xeon to get ecc.


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 31, 2013)

I had VMware workstation running with both Ubuntu and server 2012 and it was running pretty fast. But I had to pay for it so I then switched to windows server 2012 and installed VMware player. As far as it doesn't support is that something internal in the cpu?


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 31, 2013)

Also if I cant do virtualization could I just host through server 2012 what are the drawbacks compared to Ubuntu LAMP?


----------



## Geofrancis (Mar 31, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> Also if I cant do virtualization could I just host through server 2012 what are the drawbacks compared to Ubuntu LAMP?



vmware player is just the same as workstation minus a few features but the performance should be the same. if all your doing is hosting a couple of pages on the vm it should be fine but it will struggle with anything cpu intensive.


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 31, 2013)

Well as far as windows software I can get most of what I need for free do to the agreements between Microsoft and the college I got to.

So know I was thinking if I should just stick with windows server 2012 and just do everything from their? 

How intensive can a website get plus a game server.

One thing that is going to run for sure is a minecraft server will have maybe 50 to 100 people logged into it and a website for the mincraft server. Hopefully that can give you a better idea?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 31, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> I had VMware workstation running with both Ubuntu and server 2012 and it was running pretty fast. But I had to pay for it so I then switched to windows server 2012 and installed VMware player. As far as it doesn't support is that something internal in the cpu?



It is internal of the cpu, later architecture cpu accelerate virtual environments instead of emulation so are much faster they have specific abstraction layer api's that virtualize the hardware layer , you already mentioned alternative plans that might perform whilst not being quite so secure so its a tradeoff , and one I know nothing of as four os, s might still run ok on your system idk.


----------



## zaqwsx (Mar 31, 2013)

Thanks, I going to skip the whole virtualization stuff and stick to server 2012 just wondering know on what I need and how to make it secure and safe.


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 1, 2013)

Looks like I'm back to plan A. I got the Ubuntu LAMP server running in VMware player. I have 2gb ram and 2 cpus assigned to it with 20gb hd space. What other things do I need at this point?


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 1, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> I got the Ubuntu LAMP server running in VMware player.



I hope that isn't your solution. Using VMPlayer to run a virtual server is a terrible idea.

What else is running on this server that requires you to be running Windows on it? Can you get away with not running Windows in the first place?

I know you said some websites, file sharing, and some game servers, but specifics would be nice since the only thing here that I would imagine that might require Windows is the game server part.


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 1, 2013)

Im running a mincraft server that is 100% and a website for that server. Then I will have a file server for me so I can grab my files from anywhere.

Their will be other websites but not sure on that and maybe some other game server.


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 1, 2013)

I open to ideas but as far as buying new stuff I can't. I have to work with what I have cant spend anymore money.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 1, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> I open to ideas but as far as buying new stuff I can't. I have to work with what I have cant spend anymore money.



Using Windows Server 2012 you can run minecraft server and host web site - I know, you love apache and linux, but in this case IIS is better solution for you. Seting up a website in IIS is just as simple as in apache, just more clicking 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323972

Just remember - *DocumentRoot* in apache is Web Site Home Directory in IIS, *ServerName* in apache is Host Header in IIS, *Listen* in apache is IP Address and TCP Port in IIS


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 1, 2013)

Anyone else want to comment on IIS for a website?


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 1, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> Anyone else want to comment on IIS for a website?



Yeah, IIS extensions for PHP suck and managing PHP versions in Windows is terrible. Unless you're only serving up static content or using ASP.net I wouldn't use it. I would however use it as an FTP server.



zaqwsx said:


> Im running a mincraft server that is 100% and a website for that server. Then I will have a file server for me so I can grab my files from anywhere.
> 
> Their will be other websites but not sure on that and maybe some other game server.



Minecraft servers can run on Linux.
Websites can run on Linux.
File servers can run on Linux.

...so you're not using Linux why again? It almost seems to make more sense to just run Ubuntu Server and run a VM of Windows if you really need it. It seems like most of what you're going to do can be done in *nix land.

Considering the machine doesn't have virtualization extensions and most of what you're doing will run well in Linux, I don't see what reason there would be to use Windows Server as the host OS. The fewer VMs you can run the better because they're take a hit in performance without the VT extensions.

I'm also partial to *nix servers since I run one for my own gateway, have several dev VMs with it, and I manage a rack full of Ubuntu servers at work. So I learn towards Ubuntu because I've had good experiences with it and I have to use it.



BiggieShady said:


> I know, you love apache and linux, but in this case IIS is better solution for you. Seting up a website in IIS is just as simple as in apache, just more clicking



Easy does not mean better. Simple, as in less options, also does not imply better. Having a lot of control over the system you run is way more important. Yeah, Apache configs have a steeper learning curve, but when you start using things like mod_rewrite, you ask yourself why you even considered using IIS.


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 2, 2013)

OK that sounds good, what other game servers can run in Linux? Also what about remote desktop and getting into the machine from anywhere is that easy as windows?

Edit: Also which version of Linux would recommend?


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 2, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> OK that sounds good, what other game servers can run in Linux? Also what about remote desktop and getting into the machine from anywhere is that easy as windows?
> 
> Edit: Also which version of Linux would recommend?



I personally tend to us Ubuntu Server. A administer servers using shell, no GUI for me. If you really want a graphical interface (why you wouldn't want to baffles me because it's a waste of server resources,) but you could install all the stuff Ubuntu desktop has on top of Server by running.


```
sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop
```

Then you can use something like VNC to view the desktop, but I discourage graphical management of servers if the option exists.

You also shouldn't be asking "what runs on Linux," The question should be, "What do you need to run," because you tailor the server to your needs, not your needs to the server in most cases.


----------



## Geekoid (Apr 3, 2013)

Also, licensing is a nightmare if you are running a Windows server. Often, each device that connects to it in any way needs either you or the connecting person to have a licence to do so. Even worse if you have a Microsoft database on it. A real headache causer... 

Ubuntu server is actually pretty good. I have a few running myself, and they typically use around 128MB RAM when running (before I start installing all the extra stuff I need) so it really helps reduce overheads. Its also really easy to do maintenance scripts for Minecraft and for webservers (something else that causes me real headaches on Windows as I'm not a Visual Basic or 'powershell' programmer).  Another bonus with Ubuntu server is patching is a real gem. Most of the time you can apply all your security patches without having to bring the server down


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 3, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Easy does not mean better. Simple, as in less options, also does not imply better. Having a lot of control over the system you run is way more important. Yeah, Apache configs have a steeper learning curve, but when you start using things like mod_rewrite, you ask yourself why you even considered using IIS.



I somehow missed the PHP requirement and it seemed to me that OP really wanted to use Windows Server 2012 licence he owns, so in that respect I mentioned IIS.
Also, based on that misconception, when I said "better solution for OP" I never meant "better web server than apache".
That would be silly.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 3, 2013)

BiggieShady said:


> I somehow missed the PHP requirement and it seemed to me that OP really wanted to use Windows Server 2012 licence he owns, so in that respect I mentioned IIS.



He didn't, it's an example of how doing web applications other than ASP and ASP.NET is terrbile on IIS. We don't know his exact requirements, I've found every description on what this server will be used for to be pretty vague so I'm having a hard time makes many recommendations.



BiggieShady said:


> Also, based on that misconception, when I said "better solution for OP" I never meant "better web server than apache".



Well, since we don't know really what the website requirements are I leaned towards that which is more flexible, and I don't think IIS is more flexible.


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 4, 2013)

Just to clarify again what I want my server to do since It seems most are still confused. I'll post this in my main post later.

I need to be able to host a game server (i.e. mincraft)
I need to be able to host a webserver needs to be secure (i.e. mincraft website with logins, my own personal site, A website for my doctor which will not contain any personal customer info but may have an option to making appointments online.)
I need to be able to access my personal files from anywhere I have web access needs to be secure.

So it was between Ubuntu and Windows Server and after reading your comments I will go with Ubuntu. 

Their were also comments on command line interface or gui interface. As far as that how difficult is it to use the command line interface and can most stuff be found online or youtube? 

Those are the most major things for me I can think of at the moment.

If that is still not clear please tell me. Thanks guys for all your help!


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 4, 2013)

zaqwsx said:


> I need to be able to host a webserver needs to be secure (i.e. mincraft website with logins, my own personal site, A website for my doctor which will not contain any personal customer info but may have an option to making appointments online.)



This is what isn't clear. What are you doing to run these websites? What are you using? Just plain HTML? PHP? Is it a web application or a static page?

What are the software requirements for what you want to run.

As far as Minecraft and file sharing is concerned, that's not too bad. You can try Webmin, but it will be grossly insufficient for what you're going to be doing I think. Learning how to use the CLI isn't a "watch a youtube video and be done" kind of thing. It's something that you learn and get better at, like anything else.

Google is a powerful thing, I suggest using it. If you see something that is confusing, Google it, learn and continue.


----------



## zaqwsx (Apr 7, 2013)

OK Ill get the details in the next few weeks as I am currently busy with college .


----------

