General discussion


Who does both Linux and commercial unix

By r2325 ·
We run a large-ish shop with primarily risc machines running a commercial unix. Some of the servers are quite large (and need to be) and need to stay on the commercial unix. We are considering moving the smaller machines to intel/linux to save money.

But will we *really* save money? Isn't it more expensive to support two *nix'es? Is the cost per useful mip really lower on intel than risc?

It doesn't seem that linux yet has the detailed system level tuning tools we can get for the commercial unix ... or have I missed something?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

saving with linux

by jacob.wilkins In reply to Who does both Linux and c ...

Well, it depends on how much weight you give to anecdotal evidence. Amazon reports that their switch to Linux yeilded a $17 million savings. They turned a $6 million profit that quarter.

You do have to change you thinking a bit to realize the savings with Linux. If you are worried about "detailed system level tuning", you might be thinking about it the wrong way.

Linux helps you lots with parallelizable tasks, think expendable, commidity components.


Collapse -

Cost of Ownership

by Peter Marshall In reply to Who does both Linux and c ...

There are cost savings to be made by using a combination of UNIX and linux. I have found that these cost savings relate more to hardware.
I like to have my enterprise systems on a commercial Unix platform. This is due to the level of support thatwe can contract with Sun, HP or others.

However, I don't see the need to purchase sparc hardware to dedicate a machine to tasks like the firewall, DNS, fileserver etc. These can be taken care of by an older Intel box running a version of Linux.This will work well, and as once these systems are set up correctly they don't need constant maintainence. They can sit in a corner and be left to do their job.
At the current time I intend to keep all the enterprise systems on a commercial version of Unix.

Collapse -

Cost of Ownership

by knannest In reply to Cost of Ownership

Last years the price for low-end servers has been reduced, so there is no or almost no cost reduction to buy Intel based hardware. But if anybody want to use Intel compatible hardware, Solaris for Intel is available for free, and it is also supported by for example Oracle.
The Linux alternative is to buy the SLES or RedHat enterprice versions. Those versions are not for free.
The Solaris also gives us the benefit of reduced training, but this is not a ig saving. In my opinion, it is quite easy for a trained unix
admin to use Linux.

Collapse -

er . . .

by apotheon In reply to Cost of Ownership

I have no idea why you seem to think that Solaris can be free but Linux cannot. In terms of pure OS design, Debian makes for a better server than RHEL or SuSE, because what really makes any difference between Linuxes (discounting peripheral matters, like what sort of support you'll want) for purposes of running a server is ease of customization and ease of maintenance. For both, nothing beats a system that uses the most extensive apt repositories in existence. That would be Debian, and it doesn't cost one red cent.

How is paying for Linux the only alternative to Solaris on x86 (especially now that there's a version of Oracle for Linux)?

I agree with the last point about trained Unix administrators finding it easy to aministrate a Linux box. Linux is a Unix. It's that simple. There are only about as many functional administrative differences between Linux and Solaris as there are between Solaris and HP-UX. Maybe less, especially since Linux can be easily modified to be more like Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, and so on, with far less effort than similar modifications can be made in commercial Unices.

Collapse -

Mandrake options

by Jaqui In reply to Who does both Linux and c ...

Corporate Server.
full server essentials, including security

Corporate Desktop
complete integration for transparent end user networking and no loss of seciruty from external sources

( for your large servers )

a lot of newer large server systems are coming with a linux clustering os instead of commercial unix, to lower costs for the end user.

Collapse -

Both solid as a rock

by jdclyde In reply to Who does both Linux and c ...

The commercial unix is on our main server, and has been since before I came along.

When I needed a test server for the Y2K rewrite I got a copy of RH and then copied the main system over.

When it was time to add a new server to run Domino (Lotus Notes) the Commercial unixes wouldn't certify that if would run. IBM stepped up and certified that it would run on RH, so we went with it.

Now, we have 7 servers. One running Win2kServer, one on the com unix and the rest are all RH.

After RH went commercial, I had real issues with them. The cost of $300 per server is easy to swollow, but having to do a baremetal install to convert over is unexceptable.

Next server will most likely be SuSe.
NOTE: our Notes server just had to be rebooted yesterday, 324 days up.

Collapse -

and . . .

by apotheon In reply to Both solid as a rock

. . . it probably "had to be rebooted" because you had to do something with hardware, or had to physically unplug it for some reason, or some other reason unrelated to system stability. Would that be an accurate guess?

Collapse -

Well ... Ya

by jdclyde In reply to and . . .

We took the systems down to **** them out.

Even in a "clean" computer room you still get a lot of dust.

Like to do that once a year for my servers. Chase dust bunnies around. : >

Related Discussions

Related Forums