Hi,
So I am going to switch host and go for a dedicated machine. However, I am not sure if I should pick Linux or Windows. I have heard that Linux is less stable than windows and can cause issues? While some people say that it's better.
Now I can work with both Linux and windows, so that's not a problem for me. I am just looking to get the best performance with as little issues as possible. ( I will be running a deathrun server and a few other smaller gamemodes. [B]Not DarkRP[/B])
What do you guys prefer for gmod, Linux or Windows and why?
I've heard some people say that Windows is better for physics processing, but I've always ran my sandbox server on Linux and I never ran into any issues. Instability I'm not so sure about, in the past it was a serious problem but for the last couple of years it's been fine. My servers never crashed any more than my friend's server did.
Generally speaking, Linux uses far less resources than Windows, which would free them up for your server software. That said, I'd personally recommend Ubuntu Server x64.
Linux works great
Have fun paying for a windows license.
[QUOTE=TheCrankyGuy;52544660]I have heard that Linux is less stable than windows and can cause issues?[/QUOTE]
It is without a doubt the other way around. Go for Linux, definitely.
Debian stable CLI or CentOS
[QUOTE=TheCrankyGuy;52544660]Hi,
So I am going to switch host and go for a dedicated machine. However, I am not sure if I should pick Linux or Windows. I have heard that Linux is less stable than windows and can cause issues? While some people say that it's better.
Now I can work with both Linux and windows, so that's not a problem for me. I am just looking to get the best performance with as little issues as possible. ( I will be running a deathrun server and a few other smaller gamemodes. [B]Not DarkRP[/B])
What do you guys prefer for gmod, Linux or Windows and why?[/QUOTE]
Windows for sure
[QUOTE=HydraHeight;52647397]Windows for sure[/QUOTE]
Linux is objectively more lightweight, secure, and stable than Windows, in all cases.
Could you explain how you came to such a conclusion?
[QUOTE=Sweepyoface;52647952]Linux is objectively more lightweight, secure, and stable than Windows, in all cases.
Could you explain how you came to such a conclusion?[/QUOTE]
Agreed; I can run 2 small servers comfortably on a gigabyte of memory on linux, whereas a gigabyte on windows server is barely enough to run the OS.
[QUOTE=Windows i7;52548942]Generally speaking, Linux uses far less resources than Windows, which would free them up for your server software. That said, I'd personally recommend Ubuntu Server x64.[/QUOTE]
Headless Server 2016 installs are pretty good these days
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;52661516]Headless Server 2016 installs are pretty good these days[/QUOTE]
It also comes with a plethora of other problems;
1. Not secure by default
2. Licensing
3. Limited scripting/terminal capability
4. Limited compatibility with other software
5. Limited capability to schedule tasks
6. Not as portable
If you'd like to do anything beyond hosting your server, Linux is going to be a lot more versatile.
Linux servers have more free Ram (as @Windowsi7 said), and can run with no instability issues at all.
I'm hosting a server atm, 1CPU+1GB(Ram) and usually 20ppl get on: no issues at all.
[QUOTE=Sweepyoface;52663876]It also comes with a plethora of other problems;
1. Not secure by default
2. Licensing
3. Limited scripting/terminal capability
4. Limited compatibility with other software
5. Limited capability to schedule tasks
6. Not as portable
If you'd like to do anything beyond hosting your server, Linux is going to be a lot more versatile.[/QUOTE]
1. I don't know exactly what this means (I'm not sure even you do) but everything you host should be behind some sort of firewall, regardless of OS
2. I completely agree with license costs
3. PowerShell is incredibly versatile and RSAT is a fantastic management tool
4. This is entirely dependent on what you're doing, and if you're hosting a server environment then you should be using a hypervisor and hosting each service inside of a VM anyway
5. Windows has a task scheduler
6. This is negated by not running the OS on bare metal which is almost entirely useless and wasteful of resources these days
I'm not saying Windows Server is the answer, but it's not nearly as awful as people make it out to be. I work with both Linux and Windows Server daily, they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
1. "Some sort of firewall" means nothing when your operation system has gaping security holes. How do you think that wannacry dealio happened?
2. Whether or not you agree with license costs doesn't make them any less inconvenient. I don't know how you could argue that free and open source software is not better?
3. Compared to how extensible and feature filled bash is (builtins, etc), PowerShell is not very useful.
4. This is entirely untrue, running a bunch of VMs comes with a lot of overhead, and what you should be using is something like docker instead. This goes back to my FOSS point, where nobody wants to develop for your platform when it isn't.
5. Again, compared to the utilities that many GNU/Linux systems have, this is nothing. Hence the term 'limited.'
6. What are you trying to say here?
I work as a sysadmin, and see no reason to ever use a Windows Server OS unless you're locked into some ancient enterprise software. You've not provided any reasons why anyone should do so, instead, you're trying to defend it.
I suggest a nice current linux distro. Something like ubuntu or debain are decent. If you are not confortable with command line stuff, look at windows, 2016 is nice looking.
If you go with linux look up Linux Game Server Manager. It is a nice little way to manage the server.
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;52666956]
4. This is entirely dependent on what you're doing, and if you're hosting a server environment then you should be using a hypervisor and hosting each service inside of a VM anyway
[/QUOTE]
I see this a lot but I don't really understand it. I thought the entire point of a multi-user in $CURRENT_YEAR was so that you don't have to use a bunch of vm's
Windows if:
- You've already bought it and don't want to feel like you wasted the license
OR
- You already know what to do in Windows with ease and the idea of touching Linux makes your brain melt with "codez".
Linux for all other occasions.
[QUOTE=Apickx;52682565]I see this a lot but I don't really understand it. I thought the entire point of a multi-user in $CURRENT_YEAR was so that you don't have to use a bunch of vm's[/QUOTE]
It prevents your server from being tied to bare metal and it lets you have a point of failure without taking everything down. You can reboot one machine without taking everything offline or have an update fail without putting everything down until you can recover the environment.
It's not a solution to "I don't want everything running as one user" but "I want to have a better, more reliable infrastructure and make better use of my equipment"
I'm running Garry's Mod on an old Pentium 4 computer/2GB ram. Downloaded CD-ROM version of Debian netinst (minimal install) and used the gmodserver script
It's a little laggy because of the old specs, but it works as a POC. Currently running Quake 3 gamemode (free for all) with 4 player slots.
Resources:
[url]https://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/[/url]
[url]https://gameservermanagers.com/lgsm/gmodserver/[/url]
Make sure you only choose SSH and system utils when installing Debian, and after you're up and running, install Samba file share for easy server files access
Well for some reason certain maps crash on Linux but work fine on Windows. From my own experience tho Linux servers are way less laggy and the client is able to keep up with the server at all times pretty much while windows servers remind me of darkrp 2.0.0
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
