[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel
chris at yonderway.com
Tue Apr 22 05:54:24 CDT 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 09:39 AM, Kurt Huhn wrote:
> What exactly is the difference in RedHat Enterprise Advanced Server (or
> whatever) and a Linux that I download and build to suit my needs? What
> does it have that isn't available as open source?
Good question, and one I've been struggling with at $WORK. Keep in
mind a lot of this was in place before I started working there so I
didn't make the call to do lots of these things.
The CTO calls me in the other day and one of the things he wants to
talk about is the high cost of our Linux farm. Our developers have
been THRILLED with the Linux platform, especially in recent months, due
to the extremely high performance over our Sun E450 Oracle servers.
We're running Oracle on some dual Xeon IBM x345 servers and it just
These servers were ordered with RHAS 2.1. I didn't spec them that way.
This was either a ~$800 option or ~$1200 option, I forget. We got
three identical machines. For giggles I tried putting RH Linux 7.3 on
one of them. We did some things like setting up table spaces, doing
bulk imports of data, etc. Red Hat Linux 7.3 was at least as fast as
RHAS in all areas, and faster in a few. I'm increasingly of the
opinion that, for our purposes, RHAS 2.1 is pure marketing bull.
But wait, the other part of RHAS that is supposed to be magical is
their support. Forget it. Unless you spend a lot of extra dough, the
important bits aren't supported. I opened up several trouble tickets
and it would take days in some cases to get a response back from RH
support. It turned out that in other cases I was expecting one level
of support and getting another, and they didn't bother to tell me that
my support contract doesn't cover what I was asking about therefore I
was lucky to be getting any response at all. *grumble* I can't speak
for the quality of their highest level support option, but the support
that comes with RHAS 2.1 for a year is crap.
Yet another sales pitch item is RHN. I'll agree, RHN is a great tool
when your server farm is small. Try doing bulk RPM updates to like 30
servers running 4 or 5 different flavors of RHL though and you will see
the RHN servers brought to their knees. Additionally RHN is foolish
about bandwidth utilization unless you buy a very very expensive site
proxy product from Red Hat. I have been unable for awhile now to use
RHN to update all of my servers at once, and now need to select small
groups at a time for the front end interface to work. And even if I
can get jobs into the queue, the clients themselves running rhn_check
(and up2date) will sometimes break unceremoniously while downloading
updates from RH's pokey servers.
Early adopter access to ISO's? Hahahahhaha. That was a good April
Fools joke by Red Hat.
In the end we're left considering a few options. I'm feeling right now
like either we freeload off of Red Hat by ftp-installing the consumer
Linux releases, supporting ourselves (which is what we're doing anyway)
and setting up some sort of RPM repository on our LAN.
We've also kicked around the idea of switching to Debian. Need an
RHN-like management front end but it's very stable and easy to upgrade
from one release to the next.
PostgreSQL performs badly on Red Hat. We use PostgreSQL for some
smaller production databases where the cost of Oracle didn't make
sense. I'd very much like to evaluate FreeBSD as a preferred platform
for PostgreSQL and I'm trying to free up some hardware to allow me to
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has
seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
- -Dwight David Eisenhower
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rescue