Linux Fedora Core 3 & 4 or FreeBSD?

**thebillionaire** · 10-31-2005, 05:06 PM

Alright I just decided to get a good $100/m server but as for OS which is better?

Linux Fedora Core 3 & 4 or FreeBSD

**moonshield** · 10-31-2005, 05:26 PM

FreeBSD is a server OS.

Fedora 3 and 4 are more for the desktop.

You want Red Hat Enerprise or CentOS for a server platform if you want Linux.

You should seriously take the suggestion of putting all your questions in one thread.

**thebillionaire** · 10-31-2005, 06:46 PM

yea but I think chris is gonna get more search engines results if I have diff topics

Any who which do I choose?

**Westech** · 10-31-2005, 09:52 PM

I agree with moonshield. Go with Redhat or CentOS if you can.

If you're really stuck with choosing either Fedora or FreeBSD:

Fedora isn't as stable for servers as other distributions. It's more of a cutting edge experimental distribution and generally for servers you would want an older more fully tested distro.

FreeBSD is very good and very stable, but it's different from standard Linux. Not as many people are familiar with it so you'll have more trouble finding information online and finding people to help you if you have trouble.

**aj8** · 11-01-2005, 03:56 AM

I have run several servers with a variety of different load levels using Fedora. It's true that some releases have sucked, but that's basically in common with a lot of operating systems. Looking at one of mine...

10:52:53 up 165 days, 19:22,

Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg)

Seems pretty decent. It isn't a particularly heavily loaded machine, but the hardware is very lightweight - Mini ITX 1GHz EPIA in a quarter depth 1U rackmount... Works nicely. I have a similar spec machine at home running a NAS server, again.. works fine.

I know people who run some very popular and busy sites on Fedora.

It is up to personal preference. I'm also kind-of playing devil's advocate here... I'm really saying FC isn't a bad system in general. And given the choice between BSD and FC i'd probably plump for the linux option.

AJ

**moonshield** · 11-01-2005, 02:05 PM

I had FC also and had no problems with stability but the truth is that it is not a server platform. Its not as 'hardened' as RHEL or CentOS and potentially less secure.

**MarkB** · 11-01-2005, 02:39 PM

The first dedicated box I ever had ran FreeBSD - although it was a stable OS, there *were* some niggling incompatibility issues with it with some things (I can't recall specifics, sorry). Other more Linux-y distros will serve(r) you better

**Mike Hunt** · 11-01-2005, 05:08 PM

You all know of some good hosting co's that offer dedictated RHEL/Centos servers? Something better than ev1?

**Westech** · 11-01-2005, 09:05 PM

I can recommend some other hosting companies that offer dedicated RHEL or CentOS servers, but I don't know that they're better than EV1. I've always thought that EV1 is great.

Maybe if you tell us what specifically you don't like about EV1 we can recommend a company who can do better in that area.

**Mike Hunt** · 11-01-2005, 10:03 PM

ev1's great, but they're a little pricier than others (I do dislike all the steep monthly charges they tack on for various upgrades: hd's, memory, etc.) . Just curious what other hosts out there are as good, but cheaper.

**Mike Hunt** · 11-02-2005, 02:56 AM

Serverbeach appears to offer more than ev1, at lower prices.

**Westech** · 11-02-2005, 07:48 AM

15minuteservers.com has some good deals. I've used them in the past without any problems. The drawback is that they do not offer any type of phone support. Any issues must be handled through their online ticket system. I got response times through the ticket system of between 15 - 30 minutes.

If you need something with a lot of extras like memory and HD upgrades you might end up better off buying your own server to your exact specs and colocating it. gnax.net would probably be a good choice if you want to go the colocation route.