Recommended Linux for Servers

kingrob said:
Well, if he needs a support contract, then best would be to go all out RHEL.

Alternatively, like I have mentioned before, you can have one server running RHEL, the rest CentOS and get a support contract from Red Hat. Just need a server running RHEL.

CentOS community is alive and kicking, but if you need quick answers, then the Red Hat way is better.
Click to expand...

I like the idea that potentially you could set up an Ubuntu server without a support contract and then buy your support at a later time of your convenience. With RHEL/Centos, you would either have to go with supported RHEL from the start or test on Centos then migrate to RHEL for production or do a kind of fudge it by having one RHEL server as you suggest.

I may well have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to formal Linux support but that's kind of where I'm coming from.
 
ghoti said:
What standards would that be?

CentOS and RHEL are not exactly the king of standards either. They fk with perl all the time cause of yum.
Click to expand...

Centos5+6 - /etc/grub.conf
Its there with exactly the same formatting layout etc. Its the small things that get me, im sure there are lots more too.

pretty sure yum is written in python as well. how many people have had apt-get break on them in dependancy hell(specifically with ubuntu packages). Broken package management isnt really fun when it comes to production boxes. and then theres this:-
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM2Nzg

another package format, thats just what is needed! Remember how great unity was when it first came out? yeah enjoy this one lol.

yum on the other hand is godly, especially when in conjunction with rhn/spacewalk. Anyone handling more then 5 machines should look at using spacewalk

Lets not speak about the multiple directions that canonical going in
tv's, phones, mir, unity 8, yet their software center is still complete ****.

Theres good reason why the derivatives are moving to debian instead.
And to think i was a huge ubuntu fanboi 2.5 years ago =/
 
Last edited:
Why is nobody talking/recommending Suse Enterprise Linux ????
 
Aximo said:
Why is nobody talking/recommending Suse Enterprise Linux ????
Click to expand...
I suspect that is because most things people run on a server, by default supports Redhat/CentOS, and if not Ubuntu Server is a popular alternative to that.

For example, look at CPanel. By default runs best on CentOS and is best supported on that platform.
Plesk, was initially only running on CentOS, though now you can run it on most distributions, yet it runs best on CentOS.

Look at Iredmail (mail hosting solution), it supports Suse ect, but if you want to use the LDAP backend, it only works on Redhat/Centos, Ubuntu/Debian and the BSDs, but not Suse.

That is just 2 examples I quickly thought about, but most things we do in the server business, goes for Redhat/CentOS first.
 
My mistake meant SLES Suse enterprise linux server. If u look at the commercial support structure and interoperbality. In the Redhat vs Sles comparison it looks like a promising alternative. And for the ppl that had the old Novell products in there environment the port of that software to the SLES platform is a plus (i cant live without E-Directory). Just my two cents
 
Dell Blade & PowerEdge servers have 100% driver support for CentOS/RHEL - just insert the installation DVD and it's done.

What more could a sysadmin ask for?
 
My favourites for hosting important stuff:

1. Debian. Very solid and low-risk. Solutions to problems easy to find.
2. CentOS/RHEL. Also very good. RHEL commercial support makes corporates that do not trust the internal IT people feel much better so its an easier sell in some situations.
3. SLES. Same reliability/support as RedHat but not very common in SA. Have not encountered any companies running it in the last 3 years. Can't think of a reason to avoid it.

Not suitable for important stuff:

1. Ubuntu. Can only be used where there is a full QA environment. Least reliable software updates. Used it in production for 4 years - it was acceptable with good uptime but still more work than the others. Yes...yes... I know I'm the devil and don't know anything about anything.
2. Gentoo/Arch. Great distros but things can get dodgy when many admins with varying skill levels need to work on them due to a very high level of customization(usually with very little benefit). More time consuming and therefore more expensive to support.

In the end it depends on what you need to do with it. Most paid software expect RHEL so it will run fine on CentOS but software support can be refused if the developers are having a bad day.
 
kingrob said:
Dell Blade & PowerEdge servers have 100% driver support for CentOS/RHEL - just insert the installation DVD and it's done.

What more could a sysadmin ask for?
Click to expand...

I phuken hate those poweredge servers. Didnt realize they were so iffy about the hardware you have with them. I wrote a blog article about a setup from hell with a poweredge :/ I couldnt understand why my NIC`s were not getting picked up.

To be fair, the problem was with me, not really the Dell. I didnt know it doesnt like a lot of hardware out there.
 
Last edited:
Still running a few freebsd servers at work, rock solid. However our new servers run on Ubuntu LTS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X