OS for Web Server

[lmaobadatmath]

Hey
I have a server at home that is currently unused I am going to be hosting a bunch of websites on using Apache virtual hosts (2x Xeon W3670s). They are going to be running LAMP (and in some cases Wordpress) 24/7 for probably a couple of years minium.
I am starting to work on the server tomorrow and thought I'd ask what Linux distro you guys recommend to run on it. I am fairly experienced with Unix and Linux in general, I have used Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE in the past, but I am willing to learn another Linux distro if you guys strongly recommend it. 

[mariushm]

You could use Windows 2008, it will recognize the two processors just fine and work well with that hardware (cpus launched 2010 so Windows 2008 was still current at that time)

There's 64bit Apache, there's php, there's mysql / mariadb , hmailserver (or others) for email etc etc

 

[lmaobadatmath]

Just now, mariushm said:

You could use Windows 2008, it will recognize the two processors just fine and work well with that hardware (cpus launched 2010 so Windows 2008 was still current at that time)

There's 64bit Apache, there's php, there's mysql / mariadb , hmailserver (or others) for email etc etc

 

You mean Windows Server 2008? Also, I'd prefer to stick to OS's that will get updates and long term support, and I don't want to spend money on OSs

[mariushm]

20 minutes ago, lmaobadatmath said:

You mean Windows Server 2008? Also, I'd prefer to stick to OS's that will get updates and long term support, and I don't want to spend money on OSs

Dude, your hardware is old... cpus are almost 10 years old, everything is almost 10 years old.

Even with Linux OSes, whatever updates there may be, they are unlikely to be related to your hardware, people update the newer stuff.

So once you set up an OS like Windows 2008 or let's say WIndows 2012, you're not gonna get new updates, you're not gonna need the long term support and all that.

 

As for buying it, nobody's gonna sell you Windows 2008, they'll push Windows 2012, 2016 or 2019 - I have dedicated servers I rent from Leaseweb and I still have Windows 2012 R2 on them.

You can download Windows 2008 R2 for free from Microsoft, with 180 day evaluation (no key, no serial etc) : https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11093

 

In fact, you can do the same for Windows 2012 and 2016 and 2019, Microsoft has 180 day trial versions for every version here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-in/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server

Just saying there's no point going with anything higher than 2012 R2, because newer versions would only add bloat to the OS, as your hardware is old and the newer features in the newer versions of the server OS won't be useful to you.

At least for the 2008 R2, it's super easy to get legal licenses on eBay, starting from around $13 ... here's examples LINK 1 LINK 2

Same for Windows 2012, there's license keys that are just as legit as those Windows 10 keys (volume licenses) : LINK

 

There's also a "scene release" of Windows 2008 which contains a script in the ISO image you can use to activates Windows 2008 R2  with a volume license... nobody forces you to run the script, without it you basically have the 180day trial version. If you're interested to get this version feel free to contact me through a private message.

Microsoft won't care that you use such an old version on a single computer at home, you're not losing them millions of dollars with a single computer at home.

[Timotheus2]

Any server oriented distro (Fedora Server, Ubuntu Server, Debian, CentOS) should be fine. A LTS version is probably best.

[lmaobadatmath]

56 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Dude, your hardware is old... cpus are almost 10 years old, everything is almost 10 years old.

Even with Linux OSes, whatever updates there may be, they are unlikely to be related to your hardware, people update the newer stuff.

So once you set up an OS like Windows 2008 or let's say WIndows 2012, you're not gonna get new updates, you're not gonna need the long term support and all that.

 

As for buying it, nobody's gonna sell you Windows 2008, they'll push Windows 2012, 2016 or 2019 - I have dedicated servers I rent from Leaseweb and I still have Windows 2012 R2 on them.

You can download Windows 2008 R2 for free from Microsoft, with 180 day evaluation (no key, no serial etc) : https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11093

 

In fact, you can do the same for Windows 2012 and 2016 and 2019, Microsoft has 180 day trial versions for every version here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-in/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server

Just saying there's no point going with anything higher than 2012 R2, because newer versions would only add bloat to the OS, as your hardware is old and the newer features in the newer versions of the server OS won't be useful to you.

At least for the 2008 R2, it's super easy to get legal licenses on eBay, starting from around $13 ... here's examples LINK 1 LINK 2

Same for Windows 2012, there's license keys that are just as legit as those Windows 10 keys (volume licenses) : LINK

 

There's also a "scene release" of Windows 2008 which contains a script in the ISO image you can use to activates Windows 2008 R2  with a volume license... nobody forces you to run the script, without it you basically have the 180day trial version. If you're interested to get this version feel free to contact me through a private message.

Microsoft won't care that you use such an old version on a single computer at home, you're not losing them millions of dollars with a single computer at home.

That is interesting, I might check it out on my backup server,  but I am more experienced with Linux so I'd probably use that for my main server. I know that my hardware is old (It was donated to me by a small software company), but it still has many cores and threads, which makes it ideal for a server.

4 minutes ago, Timotheus2 said:

Any server oriented distro (Fedora Server, Ubuntu Server, Debian, CentOS) should be fine. A LTS version is probably best.

That was what I was going to use, I was just curious which one would be ideal for my use case.

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 hour ago, lmaobadatmath said:

That is interesting, I might check it out on my backup server,  but I am more experienced with Linux so I'd probably use that for my main server. I know that my hardware is old (It was donated to me by a small software company), but it still has many cores and threads, which makes it ideal for a server.

Please don't use 2008, it has had support dropped already, if you want windows server run 2016 or 2019 on it. No reason to run very old software thats not supported.

 

2016 and 2019 are just much better and don't need much more hardware to run.

 

But yea, go linux here, 2008 shoudln't be used these days.

[kirashi]

10 hours ago, lmaobadatmath said:

Hey
I have a server at home that is currently unused I am going to be hosting a bunch of websites on using Apache virtual hosts (2x Xeon W3670s). They are going to be running LAMP (and in some cases Wordpress) 24/7 for probably a couple of years minium.
I am starting to work on the server tomorrow and thought I'd ask what Linux distro you guys recommend to run on it. I am fairly experienced with Unix and Linux in general, I have used Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE in the past, but I am willing to learn another Linux distro if you guys strongly recommend it. 

I'd just go with something with the simplicity of Ubuntu, but without any of the consumer side junk, such as Ubuntu Server edition, or a headless Debian installation. If you're going to run cPanel, you'll want CentOS or CloudLinux, but otherwise headless Debian or even Arch would be great choices, and far better than any Windows Server because of the age of the hardware. I run headless Debian on a 2004 Mac Mini PowerPPC machine and it's still receiving updates & running just fine.

[jake9000]

I always run my servers in CentOS Minimal. It has decent hardening out of the box, the ecosystem caters more towards professionals than enthusiasts (no offense to the debian sphere, yall are great, but being adjacent to redhat has its advantages) and it's closer to the systems that I interact with professionally. 

Gonna second avoiding Server 2008. It will not be as performant... and if you want to run newer versions of Apache/MySQL/PHP then being on an old OS is going to generate issues. 

[mariushm]

My reasons for suggesting Windows was ... it's for a home server, for a few websites which are most likely gonna have few visitors so you're not trying to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the system.

You can do vhosts with Apache on Windows as a service, you can do php, you can do mysql, postgress everything is supported.

It may be a bit slower compared to Linux (but who cares, ask yourself if you even need 2 xeons for a bunch of websites when 5$ a month shared hosting may be just as good, and cheaper than the monthly electricity for your server) but you have the benefit of simply connecting to the server using remote desktop connection whenever you need to work on it and not have to mess around with compiling every stuff you're gonna use, google linux commands if you're a noob in Linux, search workarounds if some pre-requisite for some package fails to download or compile, wonder why some distro doesn't handle something about the ethernet card just right or whatever. It's less of a time sink to get it right and keep it going. More user friendly and less hassles over time for a theoretical tiny bit of performance loss.

 

Arguments like "if you want to run newer versions of Apache/MySQL/PHP then being on an old OS is going to generate issues" are ridiculous. It's not like TCP/IP, network card drivers, all internet related stuff has suffered revolutionary changes between different OS versions.

 

Differences between OS versions are often just supporting new .net versions, adding stupid features, better support for new hardware things (like new usb stuff, thunderbolt etc), more power management and handling of cores/threads (like for example getting scheduler work better with Threadripper or  Epyc style cpus), fancy networking stuff and virtualization support you won't ever touch on a "basic home server"

 

For example you can just look on Wikipedia at Windows 2012 page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2012

Basically, compared to 2008, it adds :

* option to switch between os core and os with gui

* metro based interface in server core version , windows store available but not installed

* fancier task manager

* IP address management role for discovering, monitoring, auditing, and managing the IP address space used on a corporate network. The IPAM is used for the management and monitoring of Domain Name System (DNS) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) servers.

* a number of changes to Active Directory from the version shipped with Windows Server 2008 R2. The Active Directory Domain Services installation wizard has been replaced by a new section in Server Manager, and a GUI has been added to the Active Directory Recycle Bin

* a new version of Hyper-V,[30] as presented at the Microsoft BUILD event.[31] Many new features have been added to Hyper-V, including network virtualization, multi-tenancy, storage resource pools, cross-premises connectivity, and cloud backup.

* Resilient File System (ReFS),[36] codenamed "Protogon",[37] is a new file system in Windows Server 2012 initially intended for file servers that improves on NTFS in some respects.

* IIS 8

* better scalability (4TB vs 2 TB memory, 320/540 cores vs 64/.256)

 

NONE of the above would make any damn difference for a home server, for running Apache, Mysql , PHP etc etc... you're not gonna play at home and won't care about ReFS, about IIS 8, about Active Directory... and you won't give a shit that now your OS looks like Windows 10 instead of Windows 7...

 

[jagdtigger]

53 minutes ago, mariushm said:

It may be a bit slower compared to Linux (but who cares

The point here isnt speed but security, WS2008 is EOL and since its gonna be exposed to the internet it is highly dangerous to use it....  Besides why buy windows when Debian is just as good(if not better)...

[mariushm]

23 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The point here isnt speed but security, WS2008 is EOL and since its gonna be exposed to the internet it is highly dangerous to use it....  Besides why buy windows when Debian is just as good(if not better)...

If your server is behind a firewall/router and only open ports are for your Apache (80 aka http, 443 aka https)  then the only way your server's gonna be infected/attacked would be through apache exploits or through PHP (if you're too bad of a coder) - upgrading your os and keeping your os patched won't help with that.

EOL doesn't mean your operating system's turning to shit the first day it's EOL, it just means it's no longer gonna receive critical updates (like fixes to exploits or vulnerabilities in operating system files which could allow a software running on the computer to infect or damage the computer)

For example, a critical update could be fixing a vulnerability in let's say an xml parsing dll that's part of .net runtimes which are bundled with windows - but your apache or php don't use that library anyway, so installing that critical update or not won't make any difference to the system.  It could make a difference if you're stupid and download a software infected with a virus which then takes advantage of that vulnerable xml parsing library to infect other programs on the server.

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, mariushm said:

then the only way your server's gonna be infected/attacked would be through apache exploits or through PHP

Because there were never any holes in the OS's networking stack for instance. (/s) And that is just one of the libraries provided by the OS itself, which means even though said software(apache, *sql, etc) is up to date you are still at risk because of the outdated OS.

[myselfolli]

@mariushm why do you keep beating a dead horse?

 

Windows Server 2008 is EOL, less performant (even if only marginally) and OP has experience with and wants to use a Linux/Unix distro. Why even recommend Windows then?

 

Besides - I've found Apache to be less of a hastle on Linux (Ubuntu Server in my case)

[NelizMastr]

20 hours ago, lmaobadatmath said:

Hey
I have a server at home that is currently unused I am going to be hosting a bunch of websites on using Apache virtual hosts (2x Xeon W3670s). They are going to be running LAMP (and in some cases Wordpress) 24/7 for probably a couple of years minium.
I am starting to work on the server tomorrow and thought I'd ask what Linux distro you guys recommend to run on it. I am fairly experienced with Unix and Linux in general, I have used Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE in the past, but I am willing to learn another Linux distro if you guys strongly recommend it. 

Dual W3670s in one server? That's impossible, as W-series chips are 1S only (single socket)

 

Basically, a LAMP server on Linux is all you need. Automate SSL certificates with certbot and you're good to go. I hosted my website on a Celeron based NUC and it ran rather well. A webserver doesn't need much with a typical Wordpress site.

 

19 hours ago, mariushm said:

Dude, your hardware is old... cpus are almost 10 years old, everything is almost 10 years old.

Even with Linux OSes, whatever updates there may be, they are unlikely to be related to your hardware, people update the newer stuff.

So once you set up an OS like Windows 2008 or let's say WIndows 2012, you're not gonna get new updates, you're not gonna need the long term support and all that.

A machine that's constantly connected to the open internet will become a massive security hazard as soon as support ends. Also, Windows server is massive overkill for a webserver. It can be run on Linux with significantly less resource usage and full SSL certificate automation. Old hardware is also a non-argument as these Xeons are plenty powerful and well supported still.

 

1 hour ago, myselfolli said:

@mariushm why do you keep beating a dead horse?

 

Windows Server 2008 is EOL, less performant (even if only marginally) and OP has experience with and wants to use a Linux/Unix distro. Why even recommend Windows then?

 

Besides - I've found Apache to be less of a hastle on Linux (Ubuntu Server in my case)

Exactly. Winblows Sucker 2008 is pretty much dead. Only an idiot still installs it in 2019 or someone who only needs it to be on a LAN for a specific task/legacy app.

[Mikensan]

I would also say if you're not expecting a lot of web traffic, consider using a droplet (www.digitalocean.com) or a microserver from AWS - it both gives you a chance to play with a "cloud" vendor to learn something new and saves in electricity. They both will give you a linux vm with ~1GB of ram and maybe 5GB of storage (I think) for free. Lot of people even run their unifi controller off the free instances.

 

CentOS / Ubuntu would be my two go to for an at-home solution. However since I've been playing with docker lately, I would suggest maybe rolling your services (apache/sql/whatever) as a container through docker.

[lmaobadatmath]

On 4/1/2019 at 12:31 PM, NelizMastr said:

Dual W3670s in one server? That's impossible, as W-series chips are 1S only (single socket)

 

Basically, a LAMP server on Linux is all you need. Automate SSL certificates with certbot and you're good to go. I hosted my website on a Celeron based NUC and it ran rather well. A webserver doesn't need much with a typical Wordpress site.

 

A machine that's constantly connected to the open internet will become a massive security hazard as soon as support ends. Also, Windows server is massive overkill for a webserver. It can be run on Linux with significantly less resource usage and full SSL certificate automation. Old hardware is also a non-argument as these Xeons are plenty powerful and well supported still.

 

Exactly. Winblows Sucker 2008 is pretty much dead. Only an idiot still installs it in 2019 or someone who only needs it to be on a LAN for a specific task/legacy app.

Sorry I think I confused it with my backup server that has a W3670, this server has two X5650s. My bad. 
I went for OpenSUSE in the end, thanks for the tips guys