Windows vs Linux Server

[Bucax]

I am planning to build a home server soon. I still can't decide between a Windows Home Server or a Linux-based one (Ubuntu maybe?). Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[legopc]

windows is WAAAAY easyer to use 

[MatheusSanzo]

Linux is my choice.

 

But a little bit of insight on your knowledge would help...

[1funnygame]

dont make me laugh the choice is obvious

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit : uh oh this is my 666th post i knew i should have put down a proper answer and not completely avoided the question

[Wferr]

Windows is less efficent with ram/cpu, Whats the usage case for it? Just a file server?

[Bucax]

Linux is my choice.

 

But a little bit of insight on your knowledge would help...

I am familiar with UNIX (school experience only -IT major-). I have never used a windows server.

[Bucax]

Windows is less efficent with ram/cpu, Whats the usage case for it? Just a file server?

I am planning to use my old PC: i7 Q6600 + 8 GB RAM + EVGA X58 mobo

[Bucax]

Can you elaborate on what kind of "home server"?

Data storage (still undecided on which raid conf.) and streaming. 5 PCs will be on the network.  

[Dumica]

Well, I need some help too with deciding what to use.

I'm thinking of building some home server that will act like a host, I would keep all my movies and music on it, and when I want to, I would connect to it via network, and watch movies from my laptop, HTPC, etc.

It won't be connected to any screen, it will stay in some dark space.

I'm a fan of Linux, even though I'm still new to it.

 

OP please don't mind.

[UselessBread]

get Debian netinstall.

[Priller]

Mine is a Windows Server 2012 R2.

 

I think it preforms very well and it has alot of options and features. But you must set up the individual services and features to what you want as they do not come pre-installed.

 

The ram and CPU usages as been great for me as transcoding movies on the fly will only use 12% of the 6 cores I have assigned to it.

[Xsilent(X)]

The main question to you is wat are you going to use this server for?

[Coolbreeze]

I'm going to be creating a guide on setting up a Media Server running Ubuntu server 13.10 soon.

 

Hopefully that can show you the process/operation for Linux and help you make your decision =]

 

If you'd be interested, let me know and I'll link it into this thread when it's done!

[Nallown]

Windows - Easy to use but to heavy for a server OS

Linux - More then likely would require you to use the console, very lightweight

[Spyingwind]

If you want to go into the Linux field of IT, CentOS might be the choice for you. Plenty of documentation, a bit more stable than Ubuntu in my professional experience.

If you don't want to go into the Linux field of IT, then windows server will do just fine.

Got to play with the toys that you are interested in. I play with them all.

[rashdanml]

If you want to go into the Linux field of IT, CentOS

Addendum: OpenSUSE and Debian are also excellent choices for servers. 

[Spyingwind]

Addendum: OpenSUSE and Debian are also excellent choices for servers.

The reason I suggest CentOS is that it is more recognized than the others and the red hat certs are worth more.

[lutzee]

Mine is a Windows Server 2012 R2.

 

I think it preforms very well and it has alot of options and features. But you must set up the individual services and features to what you want as they do not come pre-installed.

 

The ram and CPU usages as been great for me as transcoding movies on the fly will only use 12% of the 6 cores I have assigned to it.

Only 12% CPU load when transcoding movies? Something there doesn't seem right. I'd want to see 100% load to increase speed + efficiency. 

[Priller]

Only 12% CPU load when transcoding movies? Something there doesn't seem right. I'd want to see 100% load to increase speed + efficiency. 

 

It has zero lag and is smooth as butter. It handles it so well it doesnt need to go to 100% load.

[lutzee]

It has zero lag and is smooth as butter. It handles it so well it doesnt need to go to 100% load.

Its still not using anywhere near the full potential of the hardware, at 12% load it could be done 8 times faster if running at 100% load. Also most PCs are most efficient around 90% load, only dropping off a little bit at 100%

[Solarisfire]

Its still not using anywhere near the full potential of the hardware, at 12% load it could be done 8 times faster if running at 100% load. Also most PCs are most efficient around 90% load, only dropping off a little bit at 100%

When transcoding it is pointless running at 100% as it will then have to store the transcoded video in a buffer before sending rather than transcoding the video and sending straight away.

Computers will very very rarely run at 100% load.

 

And when you're talking about efficiency you're talking about power supply efficiency. Which is a TOTALLY different matter and nothing to do with how fast the computer runs.

[Ertman]

Only 12% CPU load when transcoding movies? Something there doesn't seem right. I'd want to see 100% load to increase speed + efficiency.

I think you are confusing transcoding for streaming purposes and re-encoding between formats, bitrates etc.

[Billbob]

I think you are confusing transcoding for streaming purposes and re-encoding between formats, bitrates etc.

 

Pretty much the same thing except one outputs to a file, the other gets output to a stream. The real difference is one is done as fast as possible, the other only has to be fast enough to be realtime.

[Ertman]

Pretty much the same thing except one outputs to a file, the other gets output to a stream. The real difference is one is done as fast as possible, the other only has to be fast enough to be realtime.

Yes and therefore there is different requirements for CPU usage. 100% usage on a stream is not good.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Ertman

[tracker1]

Depending on your needs, you may be best off with a NAS centric distribution... if you are comfortable setting up drives (RAID) etc under linux, I'd say go for that route...  Windows Home Server was a pretty nice product, but really hasn't been well maintained, and depending on your needs Linux (or BSD) may be a better route.

 

I decided to go back to a purpose built NAS (Synology) as that's been as pain free as possible for me.