building a server...needs a os

By BigPaul2006
in Linux

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

BigPaul2006

Posted
Posted

i have an old 133 mhz pentium, 32 megs of memory or more, i cant really remember right now, pc laying around that i would like to turn into a testing server. i would like to be able to host a small webpage from it (apache). this will all be primarily for learning purposes. i would like the os to include a gui that didnt take up alot of system resources but command line could also work (if the os comes with some good documentation) which os do you guys and girls recommend?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/263522-building-a-serverneeds-a-os/
Share on other sites
Proficient

MegaManXcalibur

Posted
Posted

I would say to take a look at Slackware (yeah my usual recommendation but bear with me)...

http://www.slackware.org

It's a really good distrabution for running on older hardware. Everything in Slackware can easily be done via the command line (and there is a lot of Linux command line documentation out there, much of it is very good). The distro is focused on stability, simplicity, and security (I know I say this whenever I talk about Slackware... sue me).

It lives up to all of those. The software that ships with Slackware is, for the most part, very stable. All the tools are command line based so you don't actually need a GUI (resource intensive, bad for older hardware for the most part) to do things. Also security updates are out as soon as humanly possible.

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
i have an old 133 mhz pentium, 32 megs of memory or more, i cant really remember right now,  pc laying around that i would like to turn into a testing server. i would like to be able to host a small webpage from it (apache). this will all be primarily for learning purposes. i would like the os to include a gui that didnt take up alot of system resources but command line could also work (if the os comes with some good documentation) which os do you guys and girls recommend?

585185482[/snapback]

With 133MHz and 32MB of RAM then you'd better believe it's going to be command line. :D

Most distros should work. You'll just need to keep it basic.

Veteran

Mike Douglas

Posted
Posted
well, you could try Gentoo, and only compile the things you need... e.g. apache (though, it would take a long time to compile stuff on a 133)

585185835[/snapback]

I would have to go against this advice, why waste all that time compiling to the same architecure many other distros already provide?

Mentor

ThunderRiver

Posted
Posted

I would go against Gentoo as the compiling will take forever to finish.

If you are into Open Source, you should try an older version of Slackware (version 7.x) because it provides much better hardware support. Newer kernel doesn't seem to support as many old hardwares as it should.

If I were you, I would bust out Windows NT 4 with all the latest service pack (SP6...) and patches. Honestly, NT4 GUI should not take up too much resources.

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Another recommendation for "not Gentoo", unless you do the version that you don't have to compile.

Any current distro would work great, and I would also not recommend WinNT4 (obsolete and you would have to pay to have it properly licensed).

As for a GUI, don't put a GUI on your box, but install something like webmin, which will allow you to have a web GUI access to the server from another box on your network running a browser. Very little server resources taken up with that! :yes:

Mentor

randy_tho

Posted
Posted
You could try something like DamnSmall Linux.  Its Debian based so adding what ever server software you need should be pretty easy.

585187933[/snapback]

I jsut setup FreeBSD on a similar machine for the same purpose. I am planning on using it for a moblog type server eventually.

But I'm thinking about switching over to DSL because it appears to be very easy to get where I want. There is a tutorial on this board on setting it up. Seems pretty short. Right now I have everything running on BSD but PHP doesn't seem to work. It won't render pages. Likely something I have failed to do as I'm a newb at unix.

Edit: BTW, you can use Putty to SSH in to the linux/unix box and do everything. You don't even need anything hooked to the computer. No monitor / keyboard / mouse.

Mentor

Vlad

Posted
Posted
because the compiled code should run faster because it will be optimised for his system

585187530[/snapback]

All distributions compile for the i386. Some compile for i586 (mandrake and others). Original Pentiums don't contain additional instruction sets, merely faster clockspeeds and a FPU. Compiling Gentoo for this architecture would be a lesson in futility, as well as patience.

Save yourself a huge ass headache and grab a *BSD or tinyish Linux distribution, such as Slackware, Damn Small Linux, or possibly Debian.

Proficient

Maxious

Posted
Posted
I think 2003 would be a little slow on a Pentium 133 with 32 MB of RAM.

585188388[/snapback]

it actually refuses to install on a 133mhz

one vote for slackware - its been built up from the days of floppy disk installs and 8.1 seemed to run fine on a 100mhz processor.

definately NOT gentoo - that took about 3 days of compiling on my 1.1ghz :p

Proficient

vhane

Posted
Posted
well, you could try Gentoo, and only compile the things you need... e.g. apache (though, it would take a long time to compile stuff on a 133)

585185835[/snapback]

I would advise against a source-based distro. It would take weeks to compile everything, for little gain ultimately.

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I think 2003 would be a little slow on a Pentium 133 with 32 MB of RAM.

585188388[/snapback]

it actually refuses to install on a 133mhz

585188411[/snapback]

According to Microsoft's site: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...qs/default.mspx

it looks like Windows Server 2003 will just make the cut, as far as CPU speed is concerned. However that 32MB of RAM isn't even close to the 128MB minimum listed.

You might be able to just follow the HOWTO here that another Neowin member wrote up along the lines of setting up a Linux server quickly: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=258829

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Windows 11's big performance boost is finally available for all

      By Snake Doc · Posted

      After watching the Apple event earlier this week it is quite the contrast. Apple is going back and tweaking the code to make things more efficient in may areas of MacOS. Windows is boosting your electric build to hide their issues.
    • Windows 11's big performance boost is finally available for all

      By ikjadoon · Posted

      It is silly there is no simple way to check whether this profile has been activated. CFRs are normal, but trying to even hide the fact if it's on / off seems silly, especially for something so user-facing. Surely Microsoft is "proud" of their engineering efforts on this one and ought to display it somwhere in the GUI.
    • Windows 11's big performance boost is finally available for all

      By ikjadoon · Posted

      Many Linux distros are not known for excellent battery life, so I'm not sure that is the best example. A more apt example may be Apple, but Apple's CPUs are simply far more efficient than Intel & AMD at single-threaded tasks like these, so "boosting" is not as power-hungry and less heat-inducing. Not to mention Apple will hardly engage P-cores for basic UI tasks; they use a pretty complicated QoS scheme to only activate P-cores for more serious workloads like HTML / JS execution or decompression or application launch. Microsoft is (smartly) doing it for launch, but also for UI tasks, which is the more nonsensical part: why ... do Windows 11's UIs need modern CPUs to boost? It should load so quickly that there's not even time for the CPU to boost.
    • Windows 11's big performance boost is finally available for all

      By ikjadoon · Posted

      I've not seen any controlled testing and, judging by Microsoft's mentality, within a year, they'll have added so much more bloat, it'll undo any perceptible latency benefit and we'll have boosted the CPU clocks for nothing.
    • Windows 11's big performance boost is finally available for all

      By ikjadoon · Posted

      It depends: heat soak is a thing. Initially on cold boot-up, the heatsinks & heatpipes are at ambient temp. After heatsinks & heatpipes warm up (through normal usage), they don't immediately cool to ambient temp when the load goes away. So their baseline is higher and the trigger point for fans is much less stress. Add a few more CPU spikes → it's too hot to stay at the same fan RPM → fans get triggered to start up up much sooner / get triggered to ramp much more quickly.

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      slackerzz earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      198
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      74
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!