Iis + php

[Solignis]

That is enough you to .

Ok so based on what I am hearing it sounds like for reason of keeping my sanity I should run PHP + Apache 2.

Now the magical question, I don't possess any degrees in rocket science. How am I supposed to setup Apache?

Then setting it up to work with PHP. Sound like I might need to go buy some Mountain Dew

I am gonna bet the interweb has all of the answers I seek?

[sky-knight]

Yes but in typical open source fashion it's a giant PITA.

Really honestly, I suggest you simply fire up a Debian VM.

Just install Debian with the "normal system" option and turn everything else off.

At that point...

apt-get install apache2 php5 mysql-server phpmyadmin openssh

And in about 10 min you'll have a basic but full featured LAMP server ready to rock.

To configure apache look in /etc/apache2/

You don't have to worry about virtual hosts if the VM is going to be singularly purposed... default location for web files is /var/www

How to transfer files into and out of the VM? http://winscp.net/eng/download.php

[Solignis]

Hmm that maybe be an option. The only problem is the entire reason I am doing this is for my windows based mail server. I am wanting to run a php site called RoundCube webmail. And I already have an existing in MySQL server on there running my mail DB and my Openfire DB also. So even if it is a PITA, I am wondering if keeping it on the windows server would be better in the long run.

[pirateghost]

Originally Posted by Solignis

The only problem is the entire reason I am doing this is for my windows based mail server. I am wanting to run a php site called RoundCube webmail. And I already have an existing in MySQL server on there running my mail DB and my Openfire DB also. So even if it is a PITA, I am wondering if keeping it on the windows server would be better in the long run.

so what is wrong with running it in a VM and pointing it to the appropriate database? the web frontend shouldnt need to be served by the same machine as the backend....

[sky-knight]

http://www.afterlogic.com/ ??

[Mathiau]

Originally Posted by sky-knight

You should give a base Debian installation a try. They've separated the Apache configuration up into a directory format that is very intuitive. They provide templates for a generic port 80 virtual host, you can modify that to suit your needs and copy it as many times as you want for new virtual hosts.

No it isn't as brainless as IIS thanks to Microsoft's very well done GUI. But once you get used to it you'll find yourself disliking IIS because it takes too long to drill down to the setting you want.

And, while you're at it you'll be getting better at the same base OS Untangle operates on, improving your ability to support and maintain Untangle servers.

Perhaps that was the issue, i took some advice to use CentOS or Fedora as the base OS for a web server, i have wanted to move our HTTP servers over to linux for sometime just for efficiency and security reasons but it was the virtual directories issue i had stopping me, will download Debian into a VM and give it a try!

[sky-knight]

Just for some comparison...

I originally configured my stuff on CentOS 5.1 64bit. I didn't use any packages on the precanned install, I went with the bare min installation.

I then used yum to install Apache 2, PHP5, Mysql server, and phpmyadmin to make a basic web platform. I had this platform running a single php application that served up an EVE killboard. Nothing fancy.

It used 2gb of hard drive space, 2gb of ram, and 2 of my VMWare CPUs. And it ran well.

Then, I got a copy of Debian 5 64bit, did the minimal installation, installed the same packages via apt and configured that server. Installed the same php application...

Only the debian installation was 800mb, used less than 1gb of ram, and ran on 1 CPU.

If anyone notices that CentOS 5.1 is fairly recent, as is Debian 5.0. Contrary to popular belief I'm no Linux Pro. At least I don't consider myself as such. I am proficient enough to use this technology competently, but I won't consider it professional until I'm as comfortable moving around a linux platform as I am Windows.

But, given my tinkerings... and my past experience with Red Hat... I'll never touch another OS they make as long as I live. I'll support stuff that's in place if needed, but I'm not going to be using it to install things.

Those performance numbers may not seem like much, but in a VM environment... that's the difference in 2 web VMs vs 1.

[dbunyard]

@sky-knight
Interesting. I currently run Fedora 12 x64 on a machine (physical) with 5GB of RAM and it's been running really nice. I don't usually see the RAM usage above 3GB nor the load above 0.10. It's runs as a web, DNS, DHCP, RADIUS, FTP, etc. system and has been rock solid. I also use it to listen to music in the evenings (lol, it's in the bedroom and has speakers, see pic, it's the one on the left, UT is in the middle, and Endian is on the right.) and it's never missed a beat. Though, I am intrigued by you statement about Debian. I have always favored the RedHat line of things (Fedora, CentOS, etc.) but just as you, certainly don't consider myself a Linux guru.

Maybe when it's finally time to retire that system, I will give Debian a try.

[sky-knight]

Oh don't get me started on Fedora...

It's a beta platform used to work out the kinks on the freeloaders so RedHat can charge for the full product. CentOS is of course, mostly that full product just maintained by others because all RedHat is required to give out are the source RPMs.

If I had to choose between Fedora and CentOS, CentOS wins every time.

But, let me take you back in time 8 years, my final year in college. I was interning with the IT Department for the University. My first job? Go figure out why the linux professors were complaining about the labs not working.

I got in there, pulled out my SuSE hard drive, and it worked fine. As I sat there scratching my head what could be wrong with 30 Dell workstations, all identical, all having the same complaint that I can't duplicate, and all hard drive less machines with a Storecase sled system.

Then, as I was about to close out the ticket because I couldn't reproduce it. A student walked in with his drive, popped it into a machine near me, booted, only to have the unit drop with a kernel panic.

What was it? Red Hat Linux 8, back before they forked off Fedora. The problem? The OS was too stupid to deal with the CDROMs in the Dell stations being jumpered to cable select.

Honestly? Really? At that point I had a known good linux (SuSE) sitting next to a popular Linux (RedHat) and my distrust of RedHat began. It seems like such a small thing... but from such small things greater issues are born.

Even back then, Debian "Woody" was a rock. Sure it wasn't updated in forever, sure it took Ubuntu to come along, fork it and breath life back into it. But even back then, the darn thing just worked.

Am I biased? Am I being unreasonable? All I know is what I see when I'm asked to fix these wondrous things we call PCs.

[dbunyard]

Let me clarify. When it comes to a solid system, CentOS will most certainly win over Fedora. My system is well...my system. I use it mostly for dev work and host a handful of my own websites. I just implemented a new CentOS system at work for web/mail/FTP and it's been rock solid. I wouldn't trust Fedora for anything production when it comes to the corporate environment. I love it because I can test out new code against the latest and greatest (PHP 5.3 for instance). Though when it comes to stability, I would still choose CentOS. Thous again, I have been biased to the RedHat line for many years.

As for Ubuntu....don't get me started on that. For me, it's a desktop OS, nothing more.

Alright, I should just stop now. I could go on about this all night, but I don't want to start a fight. If you want to talk about my experiences of the various distro's I've tried, please PM me. These forums are no place for a knock down drag out on the various Linux distros.