A server install - what do you do to tune performance?

FirebarUK · 27 Mar 2007 at 12:03

This is purely out of interest. For those Linux / Unix sys-admins, what are the first things you do after installing a new server to tune performance or slim down the machine?

For me in most cases its just;

- set runlevel 3 for no X (or just use something like Blackbox or IceWM)
- disable unrequired services

How much further do some of you go? Tuning the scheduler perhaps? recompile a fresh kernel without all the rubbish you don't need? set some fancy kernel parameters?

Other than monitoring performance to see if it can be tweaked anywhere, I get the feeling I should be doing more tinkering

FirebarUK · 27 Mar 2007 at 12:36

How do you find dealing with SELinux? and more importantly - administering it. How do you find grsecurity too?
I'm looking into that and AppArmor for a project. I presume you use gentoo or debian for servers?

Probably easier and more cost-efective to buy better hardware than spend ages optimising.

Overprovision, certainly what we do tbh. Need to look into Virtualisation at some point

FirebarUK · 27 Mar 2007 at 12:56

Cool

thanks for the info.

FirebarUK · 27 Mar 2007 at 16:17

There is absolutely no need for it. Everything can, and should IMO, be done through the command line. GUI is for desktops not servers.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say point-blank that there is absolutely no need for it. I know a lot of people I work with are Windows Admins and simply want a GUI. E.g; They administer their servers whilst sat in front of them and quite like using neat on a RedHat box to manage network settings etc.
Sure, if your a hardcore Nix user then you will most likely prefer using the commandline and won't need a GUI. Yet a GUI can be awfully handy to some.
I don't think running a GUI on a server should automatically make someone an admin-lolzor-noob or something.

FirebarUK · 27 Mar 2007 at 17:15

I certainly see your points and will agree to disagree.

Running a Window Manager (understandable imo) / Desktop Manager (heaven forbid) certainly does create a new attack vector, but its risk factor may be so small (e.g; the system is an internal asterisk server, not facing the net) as to be ignored.

I dont think iceWM, *box etc are a terrific waste of resources (for modern machines, even heavily utilised ones - especially if they are used to good effect) and certainly aren't bloaty, admittedly as you say.

I also don't think its fair to exclude people from using Linux just because they can't make a cup of tea through the command-line. Linux certainly has its uses, especially the ability to get a FREE server.

The couple of servers I looked after didn't run any X stuff, but a server running OES Linux that I used, did.