PC-BSD as a server?

[NickC]

Hi,

I am a little confused as to whether PC-BSD is suitable for use as a Server?

On the pcbsd.org frony page I read:
Server - Stability and security, with a light footprint and fast access. A BSD server is a solid platform from which to share files, host a database, stream videos, and more!

But then when I start reading the manual I find it is more suited to use as a desktop than a server:
Designed with the desktop computer user in mind, PC-BSD, and its community, aim to provide the following.

Is PCBSD a good choice on which to built an iSCSI based SAN for access by Windows users?

Thanks,
Nick

[Ole Juul]

It's a matter of the level of security. Generally it is not a good idea to use a GUI if you want the best security on a server - no matter what the OS. If you want to use PC-BSD for a server then I assume you insist on using a GUI since that is what PC-BSD is all about. In general, people would chose FreeBSD for server use since the GUI serves no purpose for them. Without the GUI PC-BSD is basically the same FreeBSD.

[whitelightning777]

PC-BSD can be a server since its 100% Free BSD and has no restrictions put on it. A GUI can take up system resources that may result in less performance. Still if you have a workstation with lots of users that also does something like share a net drive or a printer or a intra-net html page, using PC-BSD as a server can make perfect sense. The line between desktop and server can get more blurry then the typical IT boot camp text book would have you believe. Heck, even a XP-home box with apache that shares a printer on a LAN is acting suspiciously like a server. It can also make sense if your sys-admin is a novice or someone that has used PC-BSD and nothing else.

[fluca1978]

Short answer: yes, PCBSD can be a server (e.g., home file server).

A server is nothing more than a machine providing a service. Given that, each workstation/laptop/netbook/tablet can turn into a server if it offers a service. For instance, on my netbook I run PostgreSQL, and therefore I can use it as a database server. Of course performances and storage are not adequate to the service itself!
PCBSD, as stated by others, is a pure FreeBSD with pre-installed stuff (mainly a desktop), and therefore can offer the same capabilities as FreeBSD does for being a server. The GUI/Desktop has nothing to do with security, assuming that there is not autologin enabled and that the desktop itself does not provide some services that can be exploitable. However, running a GUI requires resources, as well as device drivers/modules that can bloat the running system, and that is why on a server usually there is no GUI at all.

[whitelightning777]

Using a gui when being a server is the same as a server performing more functions or with a heavier workload versus one that isn't. If one is willing to buy more RAM or tolerate a slight reduction in performance, using PC-BSD as a server should be no problem. Using a light weight desktop like flux or lxde when heavy use happens will mitigate any consequences to a great degree.

[NickC]

As someone who comes from the Windows world I find it difficult to imagine how you could have a normal workhorse of a server without a gui. Maybe if that server has only a very limited job to do then maybe I can see how it could be a tiny bit more efficient without a gui but for an average small business server which is often asked to do different jobs then it must be very had work trying to configure it without some sort of gui.

Surely a gui is only an overhead when someone is logged on isn't it? For most of the time when no one is actually using it how can the presence of an installed gui be that much of an overhead. With modern hardware is that slight overhead actually enough to worry about?

Quote from the PC-BSD Server page:

FreeNAS™ offers outstanding Open Source Network Attached Storage (NAS) control. Now based on FreeBSD 8.2, FreeNAS™ 8 has a revised user interface and code compliance with ongoing upgrades for the project. FreeNAS™ supports all popular networking protocols, thin provisioning, ZFS, and includes everything you need to get started filesharing.

Now that sounded good as I wanted to try setting up some iSCSI arrays and then use Samba to make them available to Windows users on the network. So for that purpose PC-BSD sounded like the right tool for the job. I wish to try to avoid another bloated distro which installs all sorts of desktop apps that are not required on a server such as: Office, Internet Browser, email client, games etc. It may be that PC-BSD is not quite the right distro for my intended purpose, hence my question.

It is largely academic at the moment as my first attempt at an install has failed, see thread: http://forums.pcbsd.org/showthread.php?t=16857

Nick

[whitelightning777]

As someone who comes from the Windows world I find it difficult to imagine how you could have a normal workhorse of a server without a gui. Maybe if that server has only a very limited job to do then maybe I can see how it could be a tiny bit more efficient without a gui but for an average small business server which is often asked to do different jobs then it must be very had work trying to configure it without some sort of gui.

Surely a gui is only an overhead when someone is logged on isn't it? For most of the time when no one is actually using it how can the presence of an installed gui be that much of an overhead. With modern hardware is that slight overhead actually enough to worry about?

Quote from the PC-BSD Server page:


Now that sounded good as I wanted to try setting up some iSCSI arrays and then use Samba to make them available to Windows users on the network. So for that purpose PC-BSD sounded like the right tool for the job. I wish to try to avoid another bloated distro which installs all sorts of desktop apps that are not required on a server such as: Office, Internet Browser, email client, games etc. It may be that PC-BSD is not quite the right distro for my intended purpose, hence my question.

It is largely academic at the moment as my first attempt at an install has failed, see thread: http://forums.pcbsd.org/showthread.php?t=16857

Nick

First, if I'm not mistaken M$ 2008 can be installed without a desktop, terminal only. I doubt that happens often in the real world.

Second, I replied to your other post. I would only add to trouble shoot your hardware, especially your DVD drive and hard drive.

[Ole Juul]

As someone who comes from the Windows world I find it difficult to imagine how you could have a normal workhorse of a server without a gui. Maybe if that server has only a very limited job to do then maybe I can see how it could be a tiny bit more efficient without a gui but for an average small business server which is often asked to do different jobs then it must be very had work trying to configure it without some sort of gui.

Surely a gui is only an overhead when someone is logged on isn't it? For most of the time when no one is actually using it how can the presence of an installed gui be that much of an overhead. With modern hardware is that slight overhead actually enough to worry about?

Hi Nick. Many people, such as myself, prefer to not use a GUI if possible. I'm just more comfortable that way and always have been. Typing commands, just like I'm writing this now, is easier for me. Of course that is a matter of personal preference but it is certainly not a matter of "a very limited job to do".

As for server GUI being "overhead", I think that's a red herring. The reason people don't normally use GUIs for servers is that the extra code adds extra vulnerabilities - lots of them. It is also extra code to maintain and keep patched, which can be a huge amount of overhead on a large server farm. You can be sure that Facebook and Google are not using a GUI on their servers. In fact a typical server doesn't even have video and the admin will be using SSH.

Anyway, you are quite correct in that it probably doesn't make much difference on a small business server - and certainly not from an "overhead" point of view. The general rule in the server world is not to use a GUI, but I think some administrators forget that many of us are not looking for the highest level of security. We all have different needs.

[whitelightning777]

From what I have seen and heard, most M$ and OS-X servers have and use a gui for both remote and local use. Most UNIX or Linux servers do not. Although many Linux distros do offer a full desktops with their server editions. Eg SuSE server edition. For example.


The security issues aren't caused by what type of terminal or desktop you have. If you're on a webpage, it isn't possible to know if the server has a desktop or not.


Typically firewall problems, untrustworthy users, or physical tampering or flaws in the operating system itself (M$) will be a far greater cause for concern for security.

[arrowdodger]

BTW, 9.1 Release will have "Server" option amongst "Desktop" and "FreeBSD".