is this a good enough web setup?

Discussion in 'Linux & BSD' started by Dark Atheist, May 8, 2008.

  1. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    freebsd 7.0 x64 - lighttpd - pgsql - php-cgi (fastcgi) - eaccelerator ?

    will also be a storage pc, after all the messing about and linux distros i have tried, it was down to slackware or freebsd, and seeing as an update on slack this morn seems to have ballsed up the test site i had installed (this never happened on bsd) i have decided to use the above
     
  2. JPRuss

    JPRuss OSNN Addict Folding Team

    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    In the unknown
    It's been my experiance that if I worked out what I would pay myself to administrate a box vs the cheap shared hosting services out there, I just go with the shared hosting.

    I have found most open-source web software use MySQL vs pgSQL, so you might want to install that as well. I also use apache vs lighttpd. I'm actually not familar with lightpd or pgSQL personally and how well they respond to high web traffic.
     
  3. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    they respond very well actually :p - lighttpd is used by google to host its videos and such, most of the webscripts i will be using do support pgsql, but favour mysql more, but pgsql scales better from what i have been told
     
  4. JPRuss

    JPRuss OSNN Addict Folding Team

    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    In the unknown
    Sounds like you already have your answer :)
     
  5. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    now i wondering if x64 is overkill for home web/storage :/
     
  6. LordOfLA

    LordOfLA Godlike!

    Messages:
    7,027
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
    only if you have < 4GB ram.
     
  7. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    so if i have 3gb your saying i should use 32bit?
     
  8. LordOfLA

    LordOfLA Godlike!

    Messages:
    7,027
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
  9. JPRuss

    JPRuss OSNN Addict Folding Team

    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    In the unknown
    So you have an old 32bit machine you are thinking of using instead?

    I would be interested in knowing more about why 3GB should use a 32bit machine?

    I understand that f you have more then 4GB of memory you need a 64bit processor because 32 bit processors (in gerneral) have a 4GB limit on their expandablity, and even at that I think a single app can only access 2GB of it max.

    Personally, I would never consider a 64bit process overkill, though not all applications take fully advantage of what 64bit has to offer.

    I use 64bit Ubuntu, and have found I have to recompile most programs under my architecture because there are not many 64bit binaries already build. Of course, I can still run the 32bit but I have to play with a lot of other libraries and stuff.

    My 2 cents for what's it's worth anyway.
     
  10. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    its an amd64 x2 - it came with 1gb ram when i bought it - i needed a cheep pc for watching hi-def and x264 rips, i then got vista and 1gb wasn't enough, i couldn't afford to get 4gb in total and seeing as there were 2 512meg sticks in there already and managing to find 2gb cheap somewhere i went for that. (being unemployed and ill has draw backs)

    Lord i thought in another thread you said to use x64 if you had more that 2gb of ram in a pc - or was that just if your using windows ?

    Now which is best to get as some say -RELEASE others are say -STABLE, although i have been told that although it might have stable in the name it doesn't mean that it is
     
  11. LordOfLA

    LordOfLA Godlike!

    Messages:
    7,027
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
    just windows :)

    -RELEASE

    use freebsd-update if you don't need fancy custom kernels

    portsnap for ports.
     
  12. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    one last question - errata - a lot of them are saying you have to patch a file and then rebuild world, wouldn't freebsd-update or portupdate do the same thing ?
     
  13. LordOfLA

    LordOfLA Godlike!

    Messages:
    7,027
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
    freebsd-update is binary patching, so patch and reboot. portupgrade is for port upgrades.
     
  14. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    i'll take that as a yes to portupgrade being good enough to update the effected port/package, as im going to update most of the packages that get installed by installer anyway.

    Thanks M
     
  15. vern

    vern Dominus Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    If it works, it's good enough. Unless you are hosting digg or something.