Whats The Best Os To Use?

GoPeDeRiCk

<div class="IPBDescription">for ns, and any hl mods...</div> Right now I'm using Windows 2003 standard because I wanted to run a SvenCoop, MS and NS server on one mechine. But now I just want to run a CS, TS and NS server... but what would the best OS be for these be? I hear FreeBSD sucks with NS?
Windows2000, Windows2003 Standard, Redhat 9, Redhat 8, Freebsd 4.7, FreeBSD 5, or Debian?

ZyfuloX

If you're familiar with Linux, run something barebones like Debian or Slackware. RedHat (and SuSe, Mandrake, etc) are bloated distros and just add extra overhead--unless you're using the server for something else besides hosting hlds... As far as patch management, the Debian apt system is by far the best, but I believe it's available now on distros like RedHat as well.

JoeBlow

This has been asked 100 times, and you get the usual linux holy war that follows. Most popular responses will be slackware, redhat, and debian. I suggest gentoo, but it is not as well known so obviously not as good as most people's suggestion. I personally say slackware and gentoo are your two best bets. Both very small footprint, highly customizeable, and neither are the most newbie friendly because of that. Gentoo has a very slick upgrade system to get software and keep your system up to date, has a journaling filesystem, and is very stable.

verbose

<!--QuoteBegin--GoPeDeRiCk+Sep 19 2003, 12:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GoPeDeRiCk @ Sep 19 2003, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hear FreeBSD sucks with NS? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where'd you pick that up from? 2.0 brought about an initial snag before it was discovered that linprocfs needed to be mounted, but I have no performance or stability problems, and I haven't heard of any other FreeBSD users complaining. (BTW: 4.8 is the current 4.x release, with 4.9 a few weeks off. 5.x branches are for the brave, but production-level problems are diminishing rapidly with each update)

I say run what you're comfortable administering. Actual performance gains from using one OS or distro over another are probably not substantial enough to warrant consideration, unless you're skimming on hardware.

Vadakill

Bloated is such an ugly description , I like "full featured" better. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Of course any distro can be "fully featured" if unneeded packages are installed.

haven

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actual performance gains from using one OS or distro over another are probably not substantial enough to warrant consideration<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

From what I've read thats not entirely true - windows servers are running with substantially less CPU usage than linux servers. There are also differnces between platforms (certainly in linux) with Athlon systems being less hit by CPU usage than Pentium based systems.

I currently run linux but I would reccomend people to run windows if they can due to CPU usage issues.

Just to make clear - I'm not wanting to start the whole debate on valve and CPU usage all over again - there are plenty of other forum threads that are covering the CPU issue but I thought it was worth mentioning as it is a driving factor in what people are choosing to run half life servers with at the moment.

P4 windows 2003 server would be lovely - now if only I had the option <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->

farcry

If you are using the server JUST for HLDS, i would recommend just installing RH 7.3, downgrading the kernel to 2.4.9 using the rpm (As per prodigy's findings of CPU usage), and then just having mysql, sshd, and ftpd installed on the server, an ftp server is not required, but might be nice.

You might also like to put on a few of the development options like gcc, cc, and some of the compilers requirements.

verbose

<!--QuoteBegin--haven+Sep 21 2003, 04:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (haven @ Sep 21 2003, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> windows servers are running with substantially less CPU usage than linux servers. There are also differnces between platforms (certainly in linux) with Athlon systems being less hit by CPU usage than Pentium based systems. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have yet to see a comparison between Windows and Linux that showed a substantial difference. Most of the "side-by-side" reports I have seen are junk, using 3.1.1.0 on Linux vs. 4.1.1.1d on Windows, or similar "apples vs. oranges" arguments. Does anyone have any worthwhile numbers comparing roughly equivalent, loaded servers? I've also heard the "Athlon vs. P4" claim, but haven't seen any numbers for that either.

DruBo

I'd like to see how <a href='http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/x86/index.html' target='_blank'>Solaris</a> performs with HLDS. Since it's free for personal use now, it could possibly become a contender.

ObsidianAtheme

<!--QuoteBegin--farcry+Sep 21 2003, 06:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (farcry @ Sep 21 2003, 06:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...then just having mysql, sshd, and ftpd installed on the server, an ftp server is not required, but might be nice.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might want to take ftpd off the list and just run sshd. sftp works through sshd, providing the same function as ftp but also keeping everything encrypted (ftp sends everything in cleartext). One never knows who is sticking their nose on your wires.

There's a decent, free Win32 sftp client called 'WinSCP' as well. (Get the latest version; Earlier ones tend to stall then crash during multiple transfers)

Just wanted to pass that along, hopefully to keep 'incidents' from occuring. (o: