Linux or Windows server?

[Amida]

What server do you use and why?

I think it will be a good idea if all the Linux and Windows Gurus can list reason why they would rather use the one or the other.

 

[w1z4rd]

What is the server going to do? It kinda depends on the needs and requirements of the person who wants the server, and what kinda role its going to play.

 

[Amida]

What is the server going to do? It kinda depends on the needs and requirements of the person who wants the server, and what kinda role its going to play.

I think it more of a general discussion like for instance to control a office network would you use Windows or Linux and why?

For a web server would you use Windows or Linux and why?

 

[w1z4rd]

Office network, depending on the size and the budget, I would most likely go for a MS product. It offers great corporate functionality

For a web server, I would run Linux without a doubt (unless I need to run a webapp thats .netty based) . Its more secure, stable and performs better than windows.

 

[Amida]

So you don't think that a Linux server will work well in a corporate environment?

 

[bdt]

Well, if all you want is protected storage, you can do a NAS box of some kind from FreeNAS at the one end, through one or other general Linux server doing the job to something like Openfiler at the other end ..or not, the way I had to grudgingly accept: a Linux server would've been great for stability and licensing costs but I got stuck with Server 2003 because *grits.teeth* QuickBooks (which, to be fair, is way, WAY better to admin than *spit* Pastel will ever be) won't allow concurrent opening of the company file with the way any 'NIX system manages shares. Take home message: sometimes you get pushed into a corner because of other apps/systems.

Then again, SBS (Small Biz Server) makes things pretty damn simple to do - simpler enough that the 'free' Linux-built server would have to be really easy to admin in order to 'make on the swings what you lose on the roundabouts' ...IOW, yes you don't have to pay for it, but it had better be bulletproof 'cos support services may well cost you more than you think/expect/want to swallow.

Short form of the above: horses for courses!

 

[icyrus]

So you don't think that a Linux server will work well in a corporate environment?

It depends entirely on the company and the prevailing attitudes. I wouldn't use a windows server over a linux server for anything.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

From my point of view it all depends on what the customer want to do with it.

If it's for simple file and printer sharing, a Linux server (SME server for example) will suffice. It can also scale up to handle email, ftp and web services should that be needed as well.

On the other side of the fence, if the customer wants to do databases like M$ Access or M$ SQL Server, or something that will only run on an M$ platform (like navision) then they'll need M$ Server... and also should the customer be prepared to pay the required licence fees...

IMHO I would prefer SME Server as it'll be resistant to most windows viruses and it is free.

 

[Amida]

So it depends really on the type of services you would like the server to perform?

Do anyone here know of large scale deployment of Linux servers?

 

[icyrus]

So it depends really on the type of services you would like the server to perform?

Do anyone here know of large scale deployment of Linux servers?

Google to name just one:
http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2879

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

We have 12 LINUX servers in our hosting facility and are about to ship another 3. We also have 3 amazon instances - LINUX.
The advantage about LINUX is the remote management over Windows Server. I might be LINUX advocate but I like WIndows Server. The advantage of LINUX over Windows is not licence costs, but cost of hardware. There is no way we could the same horsepower out of out servers if we where running Windows.

Another reason is I can ssh into a server even from my cell phone. I've just finished fixing a data base configuration from my home PC that I forgot to do at work. Took a good 2 minutes.

 

[Ludjer]

as the previous guys said.

just i would like to add one thing

if you want to cluster, by all means linux.
but with linux comes experties, if you looking for a easy server to manage from someone with no skills in linux then i would advise M$

 

[Sapphiron]

My 5mil Zim dollars worth:

If the needs are simple, go with Linux
If the needs are complicated, go with Windows.

If the server is doing only 1 or 2 things, go Linux
If the server needs to do lots of things (files, mail, web), go windows (like a small business server.

If you want easy support and troubleshooting, more help is available for Windows
Linux is much more stable when setup properly (very important the last bit)

Bottom line, most enterprises use both. personally, in Small Business, I like taking a standard Windows Server installation, load VMware server on it, and then run a each seperate function on a seperate VMware Guest. It gives you the best of both worlds. The easy hardware compatability of Windows, with the flexibility of linux.
- Kerio Mailsever (on windows XP guest)
- LAMP web server ( Ubuntu Guest)
- Openfilre IM server ( Ubuntu Guest)
- Fileserver (Clarkconnect linux) - I love flexshares.

VMware makes upgrading server a breeze (as easy as copy paste)

 

[AvOk]

My 5mil Zim dollars worth:

If the needs are simple, go with Linux
If the needs are complicated, go with Windows.

If the server is doing only 1 or 2 things, go Linux
If the server needs to do lots of things (files, mail, web), go windows (like a small business server.

If you want easy support and troubleshooting, more help is available for Windows
Linux is much more stable when setup properly (very important the last bit)

Bottom line, most enterprises use both. personally, in Small Business, I like taking a standard Windows Server installation, load VMware server on it, and then run a each seperate function on a seperate VMware Guest. It gives you the best of both worlds. The easy hardware compatability of Windows, with the flexibility of linux.
- Kerio Mailsever (on windows XP guest)
- LAMP web server ( Ubuntu Guest)
- Openfilre IM server ( Ubuntu Guest)
- Fileserver (Clarkconnect linux) - I love flexshares.

VMware makes upgrading server a breeze (as easy as copy paste)

Very good advice, we have almost 40 servers in our org, both linux and M$! The most of them are M$, also using VMWare.

For us the main problem is linux experience (I mean decent setting up and troubleshooting) costs a lot $$$. Also tech support, we have a help desk supporting users, these guys and most entry level techs have more M$ knowledge for day to day admin.

In the end it depends on the function and how much $$ your company has. Even then, I think a vast majority of corporates use a mixture with a majority of M$!

+1 for VMWare

 

[icyrus]

If the needs are complicated, go with Windows.

If the server is doing only 1 or 2 things, go Linux
If the server needs to do lots of things (files, mail, web), go windows (like a small business server.

What complicated setup would you rather run on windows than linux and why?

 

[Juggy]

We use mainly VMWare ESX server in our server farm. The dev/staging/production environments are all virtualized. Even the DC's are virtual, the only services I wouldn't vitualize are production DB servers and mail servers unless they are for very few people with well managed mailbox/db sizes.

For instance our exchange server is a Quad core Xeon with 4GB ram and the main DB server is a dual proc Quad core Xeon with 16GB ram. It would be insane to run those as VM's.

Every VM is Win2003 Server R2 which I'm going to upgrade to 2008 soon.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Virtual PC's do help a lot.

I'm in the process of upgrading a HP ML350 server so that it can run two extra virtual machines to cut out test room clutter.

 

[AvOk]

We use mainly VMWare ESX server in our server farm. The dev/staging/production environments are all virtualized. Even the DC's are virtual, the only services I wouldn't vitualize are production DB servers and mail servers unless they are for very few people with well managed mailbox/db sizes.

For instance our exchange server is a Quad core Xeon with 4GB ram and the main DB server is a dual proc Quad core Xeon with 16GB ram. It would be insane to run those as VM's.

Every VM is Win2003 Server R2 which I'm going to upgrade to 2008 soon.

I have been on a few introduction courses, from what I have seen (all Labs) Hyper-V is really good. But Vista had an epic fail, and 2008 has to many vista traits for us to even look into it right now. A nice addition is that the server roles are now services (eg. AD can be restarted as a service now). They also have a read only server, which should be great in remote locations.(Theft etc.)

Have also seen the Network Access Protection, but not fully functional, don't ever seeing it being used to its full functionality.

And obviously Server Core 2008 with no GUI was a bit of a surprise, with some custom/different commands than normal DOS commands.

I agree that the virtualized environment should not run anything critical.

 

[cos]

The OS to use on the server depends on the solution you're going to deploy and your own skills. As for me, I prefer using Linux and FreeBSD for all servers. Unix-type systems support much more technologies then Windows and can be administrated transparently.

But to our customers we advise using an OS depending on skills of their engineers. Unix administrators usually cost more, that's why many customers prefer using Windows server despite of the drawbacks.

P.S. I'm a system engineer in a company - provider of ISP billing solutions (NetUP Inc., www.utm-billing.com).

 

[Sapphiron]

We use mainly VMWare ESX server in our server farm. The dev/staging/production environments are all virtualized. Even the DC's are virtual, the only services I wouldn't vitualize are production DB servers and mail servers unless they are for very few people with well managed mailbox/db sizes.

For instance our exchange server is a Quad core Xeon with 4GB ram and the main DB server is a dual proc Quad core Xeon with 16GB ram. It would be insane to run those as VM's.

Every VM is Win2003 Server R2 which I'm going to upgrade to 2008 soon.

I am an advocate for Virtualization, but like any solution, it has its limits.

I have found that databases don't virtualize too well. You need to give it hardware thats 30-40% faster than you normally would have to. In Some cases that works out more expensive that a separate server.