Friday, August 10, 2007 8:43 PMI ordered the Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 DVD, and I tried to install it on my (older) hardware, and it didn't installed, and told me I needed 512MB of RAM or higher to continue the install. In the specs on the DVD case, it recommends 1GB of RAM, and 2GB for optimal performance. Excuse me, but WTF?
I run a OpenBSD 4.0 machine, headless (SSH), and just a command line. I'm sucessfully running the entire BSD Operating System, Apache web server, BIND 9.3.2 DNS, pf (packet filter) w/ custom ruleset, Squid cache proxy, PHP, and sendmail ALL under 64MB of RAM. The machine is an old desktop computer, with a 600MHz processor and 256MB SDRAM.
So, I would like to point out, while yes, I'm not knocking the MS services (such as Active Directory or Exchange Server), but can you PLEASE work on the performance issues? I understand that 98% of Windows Server installs are probably going to be on massive server hardware, but even then, you're still robbing them of there performance and hardware capabilites.
Tell me, how is that I have a mailserver, web server, cache proxy, packet filtering firewall, remote access (ssh), and a DNS server running on 64MB of RAM? I'll tell you how: OpenBSD is more secure and runs better than the Windows Server OS.
Friday, August 10, 2007 10:05 PM
If you want a Headless server running Windows than you can choose the Server Core installation when setting up your server.
Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:37 AMI couldn't even get that far. Plus, I seriously doubt that could reduce the load that much. Microsoft isn't known for lightweight products.
OpenBSD is free to download, no serial keys needed, and works perfectly.
Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:44 AM
Windows Server 2008 is not the right server OS for you if you are looking to run a server with only 64MB of RAM.
Server Core installation will still need at least 512MB of RAM.
Saturday, August 11, 2007 4:32 AM...and you find this acceptable? When I build a server, no matter how powerful it is, I want the system resources dedicated to the actually SERVICES, not the OS. Let's say I have 2GB of RAM, and Windows Server 2008 happens to be using 1GB of RAM for the Operating System components and services. Now, that means I have 1GB of free RAM for when traffic starts spiking and the load increases (not including the Page File). Correct?
Now, if I take that same 2GB of RAM machine, put OpenBSD on it, and make the entire OS and all the services run at 64MB of RAM, then I have approx. 1.9GB of RAM free or so. Yeah, I think I'll take the system that gives me an extra ~900MB of physical RAM, thanks.
All I'm saying is that the engineers and programmers that are working on Server 2008 need to work on performance. And don't even get me started on Security. OpenBSD has only had 2 remote flaws in the past 10 YEARS.
Saturday, August 11, 2007 6:25 AMI just donwloaded the Server 2008 Beta 3, it is VERY fast, and if you disable super fetch/caching system it would be pretty light weigh on resources. I am only running on 1GB of RAM to, right now I have 12MB of free ram, about 600MB cache, if an app demands it, that would be flushed instantly, and then if an app needed even more, I'm sure Server 08 could squeeze another 200MB or so of free ram. I've seen XP and Win2k take up as little as 40MB of RAM on Systems that only 64MB of RAM. Your thing about OpenBSD having little flaws, you can bet that if more people use it, there would be more flaws, last I checked it was enterprise editions of linux, unix, and windows server that made up the majority of servers out there.
Monday, August 13, 2007 9:14 AMModerator
Server Core requires 512 mb of ram when installing. When installed you can run it on 64 mb. Squid, James, Apache, mysql and a bunch of other stuff runs on Server Core too... But we're not gonna convince you anyway