Operating System - Linux
1748018 Members
3250 Online
108757 Solutions
New Discussion юеВ

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
Stuart Browne
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Alrighty.. Firstly, congrats Balji on the top 5 (I didn't notice *cringe* I'm sorry! I'm sorry!) :)

As for this thread, well, whoa.. Most of it's been covered (as usual) before I can get anywhere near it!

Now Bill, you posted an interesting comment to which i'd like to reply too.

Most HP-UX based workstations (and all severs) have SCSI subsystems, which is most definatly because they are purpose-build machines for the OS.

All Unicies are multi-user environments, and they all appreciate the ability to do concurrent things to disks, thus SCSI is a dream.

Whilst Linux is also a multi-user environment, and most definatly CAN utilise all of the bells+whistles of SCSI subsystems (and boy does it rock!), the fact that it can install on an IDE system is a bonus.

If you are wanting a SERVER that is going to be doing disk work (i.e. Database or large-scale web/mail server) for concurrent sessions, I'd suggest starting off with a SCSI based system, not an IDE.

I have two machines at home that run Linux 24/7. Both are PPro150's. The one with the 8GB IDE runs nicely. The one with the 2GB SCSI runs about the same.

Given that the 8GB IDE is 3-4 years NEWER (ata2) than the old 2GB SCSI, that's quite an effort. (elfwood.virtual.net.au is the old Vectra XU SCSI system! Still going strong *whee!*).

Moral:

If you need the performance in a multi-user environment with many concurrent connections, don't use IDE just 'cause you can. You already know it sucks! If you're just making a workstation or a small-usage server, you can get away with IDE.

An ISP I used to work for only had low-level machines using IDE disks running Linux in it's server farm. It did well until after about 1500 mail users. They IO just wasn't enough after that.

The ISP now uses rack-mounted (2U) custom built boxes with Adaptec 2100 RAID controllers, and is now 3-4 times the size, and these boxes are still yawning.

I only wish I had me enough money for a SCSI based workstation *sob*sob*
One long-haired git at your service...
Steven E. Protter
Exalted Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

This is a zero poiint post.

I hope.

Balaj. Congrats and go ahead start a thread, it will increase Linux interest.

With regards to Merijn, I was going to run 11.11 anyway, but I did modify the layout to accomodate him. It will be his 11.11 testbed. It will not have a public IP address, since HP-UX is substantially harder to secure than Linux. So long as I can do with the box what I wish(backup web server, testbed), I am more than excited to help Merijn expand his work to the 11.11 world.

Merijn will ssh to my production web server and then ssh again to my internal network. I hope to get filesytstm recommandations before I finalize the setup. I'll assign a user id, generate a public key and find a secure way to get it to him.

Note: I don't own a console or cable for this box. I could use alternative solutions. It has several free serial ports and a modem. If however someone has a console to help with single user stuff, we can work something out.

I'm setting up the box at work, but it probably gets kicked out the door due to a space shortage Saturday night after some server rack consilidation.

To the author: This was a great thread, I really enjoyed making my original contribution.

SEP
Steven E Protter
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
Jerome Henry
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Yes Bill,

Please continue opening this kind of thread, I enjoy it very much, full of fun and still meaningfull, I find HP-UX forum spirit here !

Last stuff on Linux, meaning is Linux Is Not Unix, this kind of term meaning itself is Linux's world favourite (there are thousand sof this kind).

J
You can lean only on what resists you...
Balaji N
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

pls zero point this post.

SEP: First thanks. It is great to see the no of bunnies on this forum.

I dont understand what you mean by starting a new thread on this. On apt-rpm? If so, first i need to experiment before i say something. all i have heard is from fellow listers who has tons of praise for this.

and regarding the HP Box for Merijn, Its a great intiative. And its going to help the community. And if possible, can i have a user id on the HP box. i dont work anymore on HP. Just to stay in touch.

may be we could get in touch over mail via balajijegan (at) yahoo (dot) com.

thanks
-balaji

Its Always Important To Know, What People Think Of You. Then, Of Course, You Surprise Them By Giving More.
Claudio Cilloni
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

If I'm not going wrong, Mandrake 8 had a fully working minimal installation of 300-320 MB. This could be a good starting point to have a running machine and _then_ install only the needed packages.
But I don't know if this type of installation is present in newer Mandrake distributions.

Hi all
Claudio
Gregory Fruth
Esteemed Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Linus pronounces it something like "Lee-nux", presumably
because he also pronounces Linus as "Lee-nus". Well,
I pronounce "Linus" as "Lye-nus", so I say "Lye-nux".

Some people get very upset at this pronounciation and
INSIST that you say "Lih-nux". The whole pronounciation
issue is quite stupid and pointless, so I just ignore them.
dirk dierickx
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

linux is still sleek and efficient, it runs on a boatload of PDAs, IBM watch, embedded devices, none of those versions take 9Gb of space.

ofcourse those are special cases, for PC use, use RH6.2, it is an old dog, but contains most of the stuff you need to fiddle around with linux.
or debian, the base install of both of these will possibly take 300-400Mb.

Recently i have been running debian woody from a 486sx@25 with 12Mb and 500Mb disk, no problems (ofcourse slow(er), but what did you expect?)
John Meissner
Esteemed Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Red Hat (or Linux in general) has way more in the install disks than you need to install. My installs usually only end up at about 1.XX gig. As for more streamlined... we've benchmarked Linux servers running SAP MUCH MUCH faster on Linux. This was an extensive test that took about 3 months. With the load we threw at the Linux box we would have downed a HP-UX server. The Linux box just asked for more... it was awesome.
All paths lead to destiny
AlienRoadShow
Frequent Advisor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

I am unable to assign points to the latest responses and have been trying for a couple of days now. Is there a maximum I'm allowed to award?
Yours, Mine and Yours
Jerome Henry
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

No Bill,

It's a bogus. Michael Steel reported your problem at
http://forums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,,0xf57c3f9a15add711abdc0090277a778c,00.html
Try to reassign, maybe one or 2 posts, to see if it could be fixed.

J
You can lean only on what resists you...