Interested in DA, need OS advice.

F

FAF

Verified User
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
87
Location
CPH, Denmark
Hi

Have been reading through the forums, and have some minor questions regarding which FreeBSD I should choose.

I have a dedicated server, currently running OpenBSD. Now that business is growing, I desperately need a control panel.

I have been making research on Plesk, CPanel, and all the other panels, but my initial conclusion is that DA is one of the best, and fast, and it uses Exim as MTA, which is a good choice. Don't know if Postfix is an option, but I can for sure live with Exim.

My provider is easyspeedy.com, and I can choose from a broad variety of OS's. I have put allot of work into the current server, but It's hard to find a controlpanel for OpenBSD. I have always loved FreeBSD, or BSD in general, so that would be my choise.

Which FreeBSD version runs out-of-the-box with DA? Is it in BETA for 5.4?

Thank you for your time.

/FAF
 
Last edited:
I will be putting up my first DA server in about a week, here is what I am doing.

I prefer BSD also but I am going with CentOS4 with this server. Reason being that there a quite a bit more people using it with Linux than BSD. That gives me a larger pool of information specific to my OS and CP if I run into any problems.

That being said many people do run it with FreeBSD and it does just fine. It is not in beta status for the 5.x branch only the 6 as far as I know.

If I ever put up another DA server I will for sure revisit the OS question and it would be harder to get me to go with Linux once I get used to DA.

Just my .02
 
If I was free in my choice of OS, I would pick one of the distros recommended for DirectAdmin. This doesn't mean of course that it won't run with any other OS but at least I can be reasonably sure it will with one of the distros listed here: http://www.directadmin.com/install.html
 
Thank you for your answers.

I'm just concerned about CentOS4 not being as secure, by default, as FreeBSD, and need conciderable more work to hardening it. Also CentOS4 needs to be patched more often, as I understand, which make it more prone to failures.

There is no doubt that CentOS has a huge community, which can support and guide you through various issues, but FreeBSD community is not so bad either.

A secure environment is very important to me, and as far as I can see - Linux is just not there yet. Maybe I'm wrong and have been asleep for the last six months?

If I can virtualize the server, fx. with XEN, and securely isolate each domain, then I might jump onto the Linux wagon, because of the streaming and gameserver support. Nevertheless, as OSNews writes: "full Xen support will go out with the release of FreeBSD 6.1" so it's not so far away and worth the wait.

I will test FreeBSD 6.0 with DA, and when time come, change to 6.1 because of XEN. If it's too difficult I might try another OS, just until FreeBSD support gets worked out.

Again, thank you for your replies, much appreciated.

/FAF

I live in Denmark, so plz bare with my english skills :)
 
I changed my mind, after doing hours of research. It feels kinda weird, but I'm doing it - time for a paradigmshift.

I will try CentOS 4.2 with DA.

Hope it's a wise decision, only time will tell. I actually started with RH back in the 90's, but couldn't cope with the constant dependency circus. Now that CentOS is an enterprise OS, and used by many hosting companies, I hope for the better.

... if it wasn't for DA!

Let's see how it goes, can always change back.

/FAF
 
LOL that is pretty much how I feel FAF.

We have lowered ourselves to the common denominator :D




No flames please just messin around.
 
FAF said:
I'm just concerned about CentOS4 not being as secure, by default, as FreeBSD, and need conciderable more work to hardening it.
Click to expand...
I don't know who's been spreading that FUD, but I can think of at least one person on the FreeBSD user list who would come to mind :rolleyes: .

It hasn't been true of any of the enterprise Linux editions for some time now.

Jeff
 
Thank you for easing a stressed mind, I relish it as nectar.

My hostingcenter will have CentOS 4.2 ready at the beginning of next week, monday or tuesday. Ready means that I can install it through a controlpanel, default setup, default partitioning, etc.

I really look forward to get this system up and running. YUM YUM...

Until then...thx

/FAF
 
Yes, that's a good idea.

CentOS will install via an autoinstalll script, with the default layout, but it uses LVM, fortunately..... I still have to see how the script handles the partitioning../root, /boot, etc.

I will checkout the /tmp security issue, thx.

/FAF
 
The CentOS default is really not acceptable for a server.

You should not use LVM, and you should use multiple partitions.

At least imho.

Jeff
 
As of today, my hosting-center included CentOS 4.2/4.3 to be amongst the available operating-systems on their servers, unfortunately I have run into difficulties regarding the partition scheme, because of the nature of the install procedure.

I've been waiting a relative long time for CentOS to emerge, and it brakes my heart that DA requires a custom setup. My hosting center specifically wrote that their servers would support every control panel on the marked, which obviously is not completely true. I will not take NO for an answer, as DA is my panel of choice.

I'm about to contact them and express my concern about not being able to choose the partitioning myself. I can imaging other setups which would require a custom setup, so more control would be desirable.

Thank you for the warning, which came just in time, actually at the same moment as CentOS appeared on Easyspeedy's homepage. Don't really know how to proceed from here, maybe I can go to the hosting-center myself?.... or make them do it. If it's completely hopeless, I will have to look for another host, and loose my mega setup-fee. Nevertheless, it's to my benefit that I only pay per month, and can cancel my hosting anytime without further notice. Would hate to move though, as I live in the same city as them, and they have lightning speeds on their lines.

Before I write to them and explain my needs, is my understanding of the “best” partitioning correct?

Scheme:

/boot – around 40 meg (primary)
/swap – x2 of the memory (swap)
/temp – 1-2 gig (primary)
/ - the rest of the drive (primary)

This takes the /temp security into consideration.

I know that it's straight out of the recommendation on your page, but maybe someone else have something to say about the partitioning?.... pro and cons.

I'm sorry that you have to bother with my case, and my host.

Thx for your time.

/FAF
 
Last edited:
LOL I do not have my DA server up yet but from researching and just general knowledge/preference I would recommend based on a 120GB drive because that is what i plan to use.

/boot - 125
/var - 15 gig
/usr - 10 gig
/ - 15 gig
/tmp - 2 gig (mount as noexec,nosuid)
/home - rest

If you run Dovecot on your mail system you could get by with a less on your /var partition unless you use a lot of DBs then you need to consider how much you need for them. Also if you do not use Dovecot and you have a lot of mail storage needed look at the /var size. By default mail, DBs and logs are on /var but Dovecot moves them to /home.

I would hope your DC would let you specify your own partition scheme. I agree if you can not that would be quite an issue! If you do go looking for another Layeredtech.com gets my vote.

My .02
 
Last edited:
DirectAdmin does not require any specific hosting scheme.

If you reread my email you'll see that I said imho, which means in my humble opinion.

DA will work on a default install.

The reason to not use LVM is simple; with LVM if any drive in an LVM partition fails the whole partition fails.

Oh, you're not going to use multiple drives in your LVM partition? Then why add the extra complexity?

And why not put everything into a single partition (as does the default)? Because if you do system problems could cause your entire drive to fill up and your system to crash. By using thoughtfully created partitions you minimize the possibility that will happen.

For example if /var fills up you you won't accidentally destroy your ability to log in.

That said, here's what I like (it's quite arbitrary):
Code: 
/		 1000 Megabytes
/usr		10000 Megabytes
/var		10000 Megabytes
/tmp		 2000 Megabytes
<swap>		 1024 Megabytes
/home		<BALANCE>
Don't forget to set /tmp as nonexecutable.

And when the drive is built find the other tmp directories, and replace them with links to /tmp.

Jeff
 
I forgot to list the swap partition but I do recommend one in pretty much every install.

I notice you do not use a /boot partition Jeff. Every time I go to slice up a drive I think about not making one. I guess old habits are hard to break LOL.
 
We're using linux and linux has been able to manage large partitions for booting on most recent server hardware for some time now.

Because you write slice I guess you may be using FreeBSD. If so, then I don't know if you need a boot partition (slice) or not.

Jeff
 
Yes I do normally use BSD on my servers but having a /boot in not needed really anymore. In fact I am pretty sure you could just have one partition plus swap now if you wanted. Like I said it is more out of habit than need at this point.

When I setup this DA server I am using CentOS4 so I will not use the /boot on it.
 
And of course if your server won't allow that you can always go back and reinstall :cool: .

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top