Talk:Server (computing)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Audio Broadcasting Servers

Is their a current discussion about audio broadcasting servers. I think it should be added Term usage in information technology. So far I only know they don't use TCP / UDP OSI layer 4, they use their own packets system. So I bet the adminastration and implementation wouldn't follow CCNA for sure. Not exactly sure are same classified similarily as Streaming Media Servers, like YouTube.

--Ramu50 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Server line of descent

For a discussion of server computing (HW & OS)'s descent from mini vs microcomputers, see Talk:Minicomputer. --Wernher 02:25, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History

If someone knows the history of servers in computing, that would be useful information to add to the article. --Putlake 02:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Readability

The article may be more readable if it is clearly broken up into sections for hardware, OS, application, and X. Right now, people who aren't experienced techies would probably have trouble understanding it. I could probably handle most of this myself, but I am not familiar enough with X Windows to move or change any of it. May make changes later anyway if no one else does though. Endless

Sample code

I removed the following sample code because it seemed a bit extraneous for the article. cprompt

Example of Very Simple Java Server

This Java program basically waits for a connection on port 21; when it gets a connection from an FTP or from a telnet client the server does its thing.

import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;

public class YorickServer
{
   private static PrintWriter out;

   public static void main(String[] args)
   {
       try
       {
           ServerSocket serverSocket = new ServerSocket(21);

           Socket incomingClient = serverSocket.accept();
           BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(incomingClient.getInputStream()));
           out = new PrintWriter(incomingClient.getOutputStream(), true);

           out.println("Welcome to the Hello Translation!");
           out.println("QUIT to exit the translator");

           while (processCommand(in.readLine()));
           
           incomingClient.close();

       }
       catch (Exception e)
       {
           e.printStackTrace();
       }
   }

   private static boolean processCommand(String command)
   {
       if (command.equals("QUIT"))
       {
           out.println("Bye!");
           return false;
       }
       else if (command.equals("ENG"))
       {
           out.println("Hello");       
       }
       else if (command.equals("FRE"))
       {
           out.println("Bonjour");       
       }
       else if (command.equals("SPA"))
       {
           out.println("Hola");       
       }
       else
       {
           out.println("Error. Language not supported.");       
       }

       return true;
   }
}

Server log is both an orphan and deadend page. Christopherlin 02:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

X-Internet

Does anyone know what the X-Internet link refers to? No other page has a similar link [1] and a google search only pulls up wikipedia or sites that mirror wikipedia content. AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Readibility x 2

The Wikipedia:lead section needs improving quite a bit. Any suggestions? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Multi-threding

Is multi-threading in the OS really needed for servers?

Definition of Server

There are many software and other things that "... carries out some task ...". The thing that makes it to a server is that a server waits until one or more client sends a query to him. The server is the active and the client is the passive part of this form of communication. There are other forms of communications between software, ex peer-to-peer. The short Example of Very Simple Java Server above is a good example of a server.

Okay, say what you just said in understandable, grammatical, correct English language, and I won't revert it again. --Schapel 05:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Server hardware

The "Server hardware" section currently says that "The X-Internet, Web Services, and Microsoft's .NET initiative all work to make even the smallest system a server." This sentence doesn't really make sense to me, though. It's not as if any of these initiatives do anything to make it easier for small systems to be servers. In fact, it could be argued that they make it harder, since they already require an IP stack, which is enough for a device to act as a server, and then add to that complexity.

Could someone please explain to me what this sentence really means and why it makes sense? Otherwise, I will delete it. --Dolda2000 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I've taken the liberty of overhauling this article to some extent, with several objectives in mind:

• More generic orientation (not everyone viewing the article will be a computer specialist)
• Less time-sensitive information (today's leading application might not be tomorrow's)
• Less mention of brand names
• Reorganized information and divided into sections
• Removed X server stuff, which belongs in its own article; mentioning it here may be confusing to non-specialist readers
• Removed mention of things like .NET architecture and other highly specific and proprietary stuff
• Treated "server" as a reference to complete systems throughout, to avoid confusing non-specialists (usage notes in previous version were a bit bewildering to anyone not already familiar with the topic)
• Removed some discussion of specific protocols, again to avoid being too technical
• Removed section reference to mainframes; mainframes are alive and well, and servers did not replace them
• Removed slight bias towards certain technologies; a lot of people know only PCs or only Intel, etc., and a bit more balance seemed appropriate

Agateller 18:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Only UNIX?

It should be noted that, while most servers that provide services like web servers, ftp servers, etc. run UNIX based systems, almost all efficient user and access administration servers for windows environments run Windows server OS themselves. Some of the sections seem to imply that unix systems are the "best" server operating systems.

• I don't know that "almost all" is true. I administer a couple of Debian Linux servers that do nothing but provide services (file, printing, database, mail, proxy, fax, etc.) to local Windows networks; they seem to me to be simpler, more efficient, much more flexible, and far more economical, than the Windows servers they replaced. Rwxrwxrwx 11:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how much "couple of Debian servers" is, but there are major installations of purely Windows Server enviroments. I personally know of 100+ servers installation administered by as much as 2-4 people. According to last Microsoft financial report they sell a lot of server OSes, so there should really be a lot of Windows Server installations in the world. Current version of article seems biased in "real admins run *nix, MS go home" way to me. Alexander Abramov 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Windows fileservers for local networks just seem so terribly inefficient and cumbersome. All I've ever used for that purpose has been Linux. --139.168.220.11 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The question was if there is practicaly only *nix operating systems in use on servers, not if some random administrators above thinks Microsoft OS is bad. In my experience it is very common to use Windows server OS on servers. If they are better than Unix or the other way around is not the question here. 213.66.124.103 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Small x86 servers (1, 2, 4 or 8 processors) generally run Windows. Big servers (16, 32, 64, 128+ processors) from vendors like IBM or Sun generally run UNIX. Linux runs on all of them. Does putting it this way help? The statement in question should be clarified. Rilak (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Google

There is groundbreaking work on servers performed at Google (as I hear), and I feel it should be reflected in this page. Todd 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

redirect from host (computing)

seems wrong. the term "host" in computing/telcom typically means "any computer connected to a network" i.e. "host system" dns "host names" etc. I dont think the redirect should go here. Comments?--Boscobiscotti 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm most eager to find out about this. I suspect that hosts actually host something, perhaps information. I wonder whether "any computer connected to a network" is actually synonymous with "node." I suspect it isn't. But I agree about the redirect. It's disconcerting, when seeking information about what hosts are, what they do, whether they all have something in common, and so on, to find an article entitled "Server (computing)" cropping up instead. Unfree (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Servers and the law

Reading the statement 'not against the law in the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted' (See WP:CENSORED), I'm interested in the legal aspects of servers. What if one were to create an artificial island in international waters and keep one's servers there? Perhaps the article should mention the legal aspects regarding servers. Richard001 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not a lawyer, I presume that servers are subject to the laws of the country in which they are located. If one were to put servers on an island in international waters, unclaimed by any country, then I suppose no laws would govern the servers at all. HavenCo was a data haven located in the microstate of Sealand, but it doesn't seem to be active according to the article. Comrade Tux 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Home Networks vs. Wireless Security

This is why securing home networks has become important of late.[2] I suggest that we change it to "This is why securing wireless home networks has become important of late.[2]" This is because it its linking to wireless, but the link reads just "securing home networks", which is a little bit looser? any other ideas? Admiralthrawn999 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Changed. --139.168.220.11 (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. --Aseld (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "server"

I suspect that the entire article is tainted by a misunderstanding of what a server is. "Server" is simply an abbreviated form of the term "file server." The word is a noun, though it is used in noun phrases as an adjective, as nouns often are. File servers are computers; they are not "applications," nor operating systems, nor anything intangible. Unfree (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting philosophical, a server is just a general purpose machine UNTIL it is given the appropriate software that allows it to serve. In my mind, asking if a machine should be called a server, without any kind of running process, is like asking what the sound of one hand clapping is. 178.255.168.77 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definition for a server: "In a network, any program which manages shared access to a centralized resource or service; an (often dedicated) device on which such a program is run."

The earliest quotation they were apparently able to find is from 1972. That quotation makes it clear that the word "server" was initially used as a generality and not as a shortened version of "file server": Proc. AFIPS Conf. XL. 264/2 "This theory considers systems in which messages place demands for transmission (service) upon a single communication channel (the single server)."

As for "file server", the earliest quotation they could find is from 1979.

So "server" predates "file server". It is not an abbreviated form of "file server". Rather "file server" is a more specific form of the word "server" just like "web server", "mail server", "DNS server", "print server", "X server", "font server", etc. SlubGlub (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also VERY important to clarify that a "server", in fact, IS something intangible and is not a piece of hardware. The tangible hardware/computer on which a server runs is the server's "host". A server's host could be a large powerful computer or a small not-so-powerful hardware device, but the computing power or form factor of the hardware does NOT make the device itself a server. The fact that marketing departments at large computer companies have historically misused the term "server" to refer to their more powerful machines should not cause those of us in the know (i.e. computer scientists) to also misuse the term and mislead the general population (especially when they turn to this article for truth and clarity). This article can certainly explain the popular skewed use of the term "server" as being a term used to refer to more power computers and how it likely evolved, but it shouldn't "dumb down" the article simply because most people are not computer scientists.

And this claim that "server" is being misused is supported by what evidence? Just curious. Rilak (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The supporting evidence is the same evidence if I were to use "server" to refer to a banana. A banana is not a server, and the evidence is simply the definition of "server". If the majority of the population did not understand the definition and started referring to bananas as servers they would certainly be misusing the term. This is precisely what has happened with "server" being used to refer to physical computers. The definition of server has been misunderstood thus misused. In computing, a "server" is the process running on the host computer that provides a service. This has been the definition since the beginning of ARPANET. Reference RFC-33, dated February 1970, for the definition of "host" and use of the term "serving host" to refer to the host computer running the server process. Other RFCs making reference to a "server" before the term started getting misused: RFC-123, RFC-66, RFC-80, RFC-197, and RFC-15. RFC-669 even lays out a table distinguishing the host computers from the servers they host and whether the server speaks the "Old" or "New" version of the TELNET protocol. This RFC illustrates that multiple servers can run on the same computer (host)...thus further clarification of the definition of "server" and that it refers to the process providing the service rather than to the physical computer hosting that process.

I do not think the evidence presented is adequate for supporting your claim that the word "server" is misused to refer to a computer hosting a server. Definitions of words and terms change over time, I don't believe this is in question. Of the evidence provided, the oldest one is from 1969, most are from 1970, and latest one is from 1974. Thus, the literature only demonstrates usage of the word "server" at least 35 years ago. Modern literature (post 1990), refers to a computer hosting a server as a "server". If I am not mistaken, Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach uses the word server to refer to a computer, as do countless other books of equal repute. I believe that this is also the case in journals. Rilak (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of a word does not change its definition. If it did then by misusing "server" to refer to a banana we soon would be having a discussion about bananas being servers. My examples were specifically old to show where the term "server" stems from. This is the history and origination of the term. You can look at more recent RFCs or texts and continue to see the correct usage, but you will also see the more recent misuse. Thus, somewhere along the way someone started using (misusing) the term "server" to refer to the server's host rather than the program running on that host computer which is doing the serving. Regardless, whether the term has been misused or has gained an alternate use does not change my original point... You can not disregard history and the origins of the term "server". It is fine to mention the general population's understanding and use of the term "server" as well, but the origin, history, and first definition of "server" MUST be primary. Further, it seems the alternate use of "server" referring to a physical computer providing a service (as opposed to the process running on that computer providing the service) is still misused by hardware companies selling computers whose purpose has yet to be determined by the purchaser. What makes the computers those companies market as servers servers? Does that mean a laptop can not provide a service, because a laptop is not a server in their marketing literature? Perhaps this is yet a further evolution of the term, but if we're not careful soon we could be using an Apple to connect to a banana to serve us some fruit salad.

Unindent...

A few points:

• You have provided no evidence to support your claim that server is being misused. If the usage of a word to refer to a computer is such an outrage, would there not be numerous books which explicitly say that such usage is wrong? I am not seeing any quotes along the lines of, "The general population's used of the word 'server' to refer to a computer providing a service is best avoided in formal communications as it refers to a program. The correct term is 'host'."

There are no books or quotes available stating that referring to a banana as a "server" is a misuse of the term "server", either. Does that mean that if I refer to a banana as a "server" that I am not misusing the term? Misuse of a word is simply using it in a way that is not supported by its definition. Thus, the only evidence needed is the definition itself. Unfortunately, the definition appears to be what is in question here.

To support the definition of a "server" being a process that provides a service (as opposed to the physical computer on which that process runs), I provided many references to the etymology of the word "server". Based on the original definition and use of the word in computing, the word is being misused when referring to a physical computer. You seem to be claiming that what I refer to as a misuse is not misuse, because there is a second definition that has evolved. I agree that if there is a second definition of "server", that defines it as the physical computer doing the serving, then what I referred to as a "misuse" would not, in fact, be a misuse...however, please note that if this second definition *evolved* from the original definition (i.e. the roots of the second definition can not be traced back as far as the first definition), then at some point in time using the term in that manner would actually have been a misuse of the term. Regardless, my original comments weren't to discuss the definition of "misuse", they were to discuss the definition of "server".

• You have provided no evidence to support your claim that it is those pesky hardware vendors corrupting the technical language again with their marketing ploys. For example, when hard disk manufactures started using gigabytes to refer to one billion bytes instead of 2³⁰ bytes, everyone noticed (eventually) and much was written about their devious ways. Is there any literature that enlightens us about this outrage that is the "misuse" of the word "server" to refer to computers by harware vendors?

I was simply providing one possible explanation behind the creation/evolution of the second definition (I don't have a detailed log of how the term "server" has gained a second usage). Again, the point was not to state how the second definition/usage of the term came to be, it was simply that it was not the primary definition.

• You ask, "What makes the computers those companies market as servers servers"? To answer, perhaps because they are configured to serve? You will find that throughout the 1990s, the same computer is marketed as a workstation and as a server, and sometimes, the only difference is the omission of multimedia hardware, the replacement of a monitor with a terminal and the bundling of server software.

• You also disregard my assertion that Hennessey, Patterson and others in the same profession use the word "server" to refer to a computer; and you continue to assert that its only the general population which misuse the word. Perhaps you are leaning towards, "Do not let the general population define words"? If it is indeed only the general population who misuse the word, then who are Hennessey, Patterson and others?

I did no such thing. I stated that more recent RFCs, texts, and the general population do use the term differently from its primary/original definition. However, I also stated that the use of the term as it was originally defined is still used extensively. The general population will certainly evolve language over time adding definitions to existing terms, but the general population should not ignore history, etymology, or the origins of the terms they are giving new definitions to.

• I must raise the possibility that just because one particular group uses x to refer to y, it does not mean that x can also be used by another group to refer to z. This is not "wrong" or a "misuse of a word as a result of ignorance". It is quite different. Both view points can and should be covered, but none should be considered to be wrong or right. Rilak (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Covering both usages is precisely what I was suggesting in my original post. Unfortunately, currently (because my edits keep getting deleted) the article makes no reference to the primary definition/usage of a server being a process (computer program) that provides a service. Instead, the article is heavily weighted to state that a "server" is a piece of computer hardware. The article, in its present form, effectively ignores the etymology and primary definition of the term as originally used by Jon Postel, Vinton Cerf, Steve Crocker, and reputable computer scientists.

Yes, all main definitions should be covered. I think the article is heavily focused on computer hardware becuase server programs are covered in more extensive detail in other articles such as Database server and Web server. The article does have numerous problems as evidenced by its tags. Rilak (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading Comer's Internetworking with TCP/IP. In a footnote in Chapter 2, he notes: Technically, a server is a program and not a piece of hardware. However, computer users frequently (mis)apply the term to the computer responsible for running a particular server program. For example, they might say, 'That computer is our file server' when they mean 'That computer runs our file server program'. . That was written in 1993, when just about all digital electronics was already computerized. If you want to change the channel on your TV, don't say: 'Pass the remote control', but instead 'Pass the computer that runs the remote control program'. As computers become more and more specialized, it seems to me that the distinction makes less and less sense. Gah4 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that I forgot to sign the one above, and it seems that sinebot didn't find it, either. I wonder, though, if a computer has server software in ROM does that make a difference? How about special purpose hardware that only has the ability to be a server for something, and can't be reprogrammed to do something else? Print servers have been dedicated ROM based for many years, likely based on simple hardware. More recently, NAS devices as file servers, likely running Linux, but otherwise not meant as general purpose processors are common. Some allow for shell login, though I suspect most people never do that, but instead use the http based configuration system. No-one would buy a print server as a replacement for a workstation. Server computers often don't have keyboard inputs and video outputs, which makes them not useful as workstations. In any case, I suspect it is close to being the WP:COMMONNAME even if CS people disagree. Gah4 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting the article

The article uses a very narrow notion of server, and needs to be significantly rewritten to make it complete and comprehensive. Plus, the references have to be standard technical textbooks or websites, and not generic dictionaries, books, or websites. Wiki5d (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think article needs to be moved to Server (computer), which covers the hardware only. Any other use of server in the field of computing should go to Server (xyz). There is no point trying to cover multiple definitions here, when there is enough complexity in each definition to result in large articles. Rilak (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But I feel that this page need not moved to Server (computer), but rather appropriate portions of this page should be moved to appropriate and separate articles (some of which might not exist yet) such as Server (computer), Server operating system, Server (program), etc.; and, for every other use xyz of Server in computing, as you mentioned, there should be a separate article of the name Server (xyz). This page, Server (computing), can be made into one that summarizes all of those different uses and links to those pages as main articles. Wiki5d (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if there was a central article which summarised the other articles and provided a central point for navigation. Rilak (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Wiki5d, this seems like the best solution. There is an obvious difference between Server (computing) and Server (computer). This article should be very generic and broad - let the sub server pages deal with details of hardware/software Server permutations. I say go for it. Jwoodger (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I agree to some points with Rilak and Wiki5d; however the "server"-article should be kept short stating that a server is a device for handling requests eg for:

• file (audio, video, text, other filetypes) sharing over internet and/or local network (FTP, SMB, AFP, UPnP AV, NFS).
• webradio broadcasting (SHOUTCAST, ...)
• webserver (for homepage, ...)
• Active directory/Bittorrent client (installing updates by a single download by server, distribution of patches over local network)
• USB or printserver
• UPS support

...

The server (hardware) can perhaps be instead the Mainframe article. Alternatively, the mainframe article can be cut in pieces which can be transferred to server (hardware. However, I don't like this article suggestion; as a server can be anything from a mere 100mhz webserver to a rack of quad-core 2,5ghz 64bit computers with over 8gb of RAM ....

As for the mainframe/server hardware page following is to be mentioned: 3 types of servers exist:

• servers running on Windows (supporting protocols are CIFS/SMB)
• servers running on Mac OS X (protocol is AppleTalk Filing Protocol)
• servers running on Unix/Linux (protocol is Network File System)

Commercial servers can be bought for all three types; a Comparisation of mainframes article needs to be made

• the HP ProLiant DL380 is the most popular windows server
• Apple Xserve (4core) are the most popular OSX servers
• Sun Fire X4150 and other Sun Fire servers are popular Linux/Unix Servers

It should be noted that Linux/Unix servers are more efficient/better as because of the OS, they require fewer resources for a same task. Also eg the Sun Fire servers have much better specifics as their counterparts when looked at the price 2000 vs 3000€ and 4300€, 16GB RAM vs 8GB and 2GB, comparable CPU's).

In general, servers require fast I/O, and thus use RAID5 or RAID6 on the hard disks (usually serial attached SCSI instead of SATA/eSATA)

The second best servers are OS X servers, yet these require extensive knowledge to set up and alturations (when implemented as a server with Windows clients)

Finally for the server operating system article, Windows Server 2003 R2, CentOS (?) are used

81.246.176.126 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Article lead-in rewrite

I rewrote the entire lead/usage of the article to hopefully introduce the sections better. I believe this article to describe a broad concept, not a specific class of hardware, so I got rid of the hardware-specific infobox that belongs on mainframe. The last section (everyday life?) seems redundant and I think a rewrite of the three other sections may turn this article around real nicely. Please comment on lead/Usage section and decide if the article is heading in the right direction, and if so the three big remaining sections will be easy. Zab (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the everyday life section and the line - "Any computer or device serving out applications or services can technically be called a server". I basically put something similar to that near the start as a more generic lead in to the whole server discussion (before defining hardware/software servers in detail). Perhaps the rest of this 'every day' section (examples, etc) could be incorporated into the usage section as a broad definition?

Jwoodger (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The "A server rack seen from the rear" picture

I did not take the picture and am not an expert, but in all the racks I've worked on this is not the orientation. To further support my suspicion, the viewing aspect seems off. To correct, rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise. Mollnow (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)