How reliable ...

[willowdan]

Hi to all,

I successfully made a Db server(PostgreSQL), webserver(XAMPP w/o MySQL) in one VirtualBox-installed Microcore and I'm happy about it. It's fast and serving its purpose at 512Mb RAM in my development machine.

I plan to make this Microcore-VBox to be my installer for the offline version of my Yii/PHP-based software. I wonder how reliable Microcore really is once I've installed it to each of my customers' laptop as offline application. What about making Microcore as a dedicated server within the LAN for my Yii/PHP-based application?

Many thanks and cheers!

[Rich]

Hi willowdan

I wonder how reliable Microcore really is once I've installed it to each of my customers' laptop as offline application.

That's a pretty broad and vague question. I don't know if this provides any insight to your question, but the machine
I'm writing from has not been rebooted in 27 days. I've had machines run for over 4 months without a reboot.

[willowdan]

Hi Rich,

Thanks, that kind of assurance is really the one I'm expecting.

But that's for a standalone setup, have you or anyone else made Core as a real webserver, db server installed in a separate machine as a server, just like we usually do with RedHat, CentOS or Debian which we only access using terminal via SSH?

Many thanks and cheers!

[Lee]

I've had core 4.x running on a couple of different headless servers - running a web server and ftp server for months at a time with no problems.  Neither machine was ever under any kind of heavy traffic load nor doing anything complex, but they've never had any problems at all.

A third server has been running samba for 204 days w/o a reboot.  That one takes a little abuse as I let my kids play those nasty online flash games on it, so I guess the fact that it still works means its robust. 

All of them are running openssh.

I'll be updating all of them to 4.7.1 "real soon now" (unless 4.8 comes along before I get around to it) so they'll get rebooted then.

[willowdan]

Great Lee!

Appreciate that post, which gives me confidence and clearer picture about a home-setup. Now, how about a headless Core that functions as web server, db server, app server in one machine that's being accessed by at least 20 to 50 simultaneous users? This is the actual scenario I'll have when I deploy my app later on. Can Core handle such abuse?

I'm asking this because I want to avoid using heavyweight distros such as CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu as headless server, mainly due to their size.

But please if anyone has to correct me about this belief, let me know if I rather have to trust the heavyweights when such requirements are present.

One post I just read is to use SliTaz, but if Core can do it as a reliable and robust headless server, why use SliTaz.

Many thanks and cheers!

[Rich]

Hi willowdan
Here are some results for Tinycore running Apache:
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,2668.msg13619.html#msg13619

[bmarkus]

Hm... Speed (performance) and realibility are two different things. BTW, what realibility means in this case?

[Rich]

Hi bmarkus
Yes, that's true. But since he ask about 20 to 50 users I thought he might find some performance numbers interesting.

@willowdan:
Reliability is a function of the hardware, kernel, applications, and how those applications are configured.
The kernel is mature, robust, and reliable. It is what all the distros run on, heavyweight or lightweight.

[curaga]

Core should have no issues handling a similar load to any heavier distro. It's the same software afterall.

The only thing you have to be careful about is to remember to make a swap partition. As Core runs in RAM, swap may be needed before a traditional distro would.


On the other hand, I would not recommend Core for a normal internet-facing server setup, purely because we're a smaller distro without a dedicated security team. For those kinds of setups you'd be better off paying for RHEL.

[willowdan]

Hi Rich, bmarkus and curaga!

Appreciate your thoughts on this.

True, reliability is the function of those mentioned. And thanks for pointing out security once the setup includes internet exposure. However, the setup will not include internet exposure, purely LAN. What I would like to be cleared about is if all the following are the same: hardware, kernel, applications, and how those applications are configured, how does Core perform compared to the heavyweights as CentOS/RHEL, Debian, Slackware, etc.? Has someone tested such setup of at most 50 concurrent access?

Many thanks and cheers!

[willowdan]

@curaga: How much SWAP is suggested for this setup? How much RAM?

Cheers!

[tinypoodle]

Hi Rich, bmarkus and curaga!

Appreciate your thoughts on this.

True, reliability is the function of those mentioned. And thanks for pointing out security once the setup includes internet exposure. However, the setup will not include internet exposure, purely LAN. What I would like to be cleared about is if all the following are the same: hardware, kernel, applications, and how those applications are configured, how does Core perform compared to the heavyweights as CentOS/RHEL, Debian, Slackware, etc.? Has someone tested such setup of at most 50 concurrent access?

Many thanks and cheers!

Depends very much on hardware specs and core mode used.
e.g. if you have plenty of RAM in order for swap never to be touched, I'd doubt any other system could easily beat core running in copy-mode.

[tinypoodle]

@curaga: How much SWAP is suggested for this setup? How much RAM?

Cheers!

You could create and swapon further swapfiles at any moment if you see you mem getting tight.

[curaga]

@curaga: How much SWAP is suggested for this setup? How much RAM?

Cheers!

You'll need to benchmark that with your setup. Run it in a VM while watching memory, increase the user count.

[willowdan]

Thanks tinypoodle and curaga.

I guess, what you're saying is Core can do what the heavyweights can do, but not necessarily do things better.

Let me know if that will be a correct interpretation.

Many thanks and cheers!