HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- linux & hp-ux differences?
Operating System - HP-UX
1833758
Members
2510
Online
110063
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-25-2003 04:50 AM
07-25-2003 04:50 AM
Re: linux & hp-ux differences?
HP-UX is much more mature, especially if your playing in a 64 bit arena. Linux for the Itanium is availiable, but I've never heard of anyone running it production. Big enough applications can call for 64 bit in some situations, read on.
One year ago we deployed Oracle 9i database on a RedHat Advanced server, dual 2.4 Ghz Xeons 4 Gb of memory. After 6 months of pure pain, worry and suffering we moved the whole thing to a rp5470 (dual 64 bit 875Mhz).
Reasons: I had continual VM problems that RedHat as a company wouldn't acknowledge, however thier engineers did. (This is finally fixed! I hope I'm deploying 2 smaller Oracle/Linux installations in the next few weeks)
32bit Linux can only get 1.7Gb of shared memory, severely limiting the amount of users that can be on a single box, especially when your numbers dictate using MTS. There is a Kernel "Hack" availiable to get 2.7 GB out of it, but due to the fragile VM subsystem I'd not recommend it.
Linux is not really a bad OS, just like HP-UX is very flexible and as others pointeed out, very servicable if you like searching google and the Mailing lists. If you doing Oracle and you want a lot of users in the end even oracle admits you better switch to industrial unix. "Oh, when you said 1000 user sessions I didn;t think you really meant 1000." Doh.
Andy
One year ago we deployed Oracle 9i database on a RedHat Advanced server, dual 2.4 Ghz Xeons 4 Gb of memory. After 6 months of pure pain, worry and suffering we moved the whole thing to a rp5470 (dual 64 bit 875Mhz).
Reasons: I had continual VM problems that RedHat as a company wouldn't acknowledge, however thier engineers did. (This is finally fixed! I hope I'm deploying 2 smaller Oracle/Linux installations in the next few weeks)
32bit Linux can only get 1.7Gb of shared memory, severely limiting the amount of users that can be on a single box, especially when your numbers dictate using MTS. There is a Kernel "Hack" availiable to get 2.7 GB out of it, but due to the fragile VM subsystem I'd not recommend it.
Linux is not really a bad OS, just like HP-UX is very flexible and as others pointeed out, very servicable if you like searching google and the Mailing lists. If you doing Oracle and you want a lot of users in the end even oracle admits you better switch to industrial unix. "Oh, when you said 1000 user sessions I didn;t think you really meant 1000." Doh.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-25-2003 05:47 AM
07-25-2003 05:47 AM
Re: linux & hp-ux differences?
Were you just trolling to see how much of an OS war you could start? :-)
Implication was made above that comparing hpux and linux means comparing ide and scsi - that's ridiculous. Linux does scsi just fine.
Implication was also made that HPUX is more secure than Linux - I'd have to say that a default redhat install facing the public leaves me feeling a LOT more secure than a default hpux install. HP brags about security, then refuses to stop releasing their OS with improper file permissions all over the place. Their openssh package of all things even includes world writeable files under /opt. Having said that however, I have no doubt that both OSes can be equally secured.
From a practical standpoint, being able to get HP to stand behind hpux is important if you're running critical apps. More important than the technical support is that they provide a scapegoat when things go wrong. :-)
From a management standpoint, hpux (and windows) is leaps and bounds beyond linux - glance is great and third-party apps like Unicenter are able to pull a LOT more data out of hpux than you can find in a month's worth of work in Linux. What process was consuming most of the cpu at 3am? This may be partially because the virtual memory management and scheduling were so in flux during the 2.4 linux kernel series that no one wanted to try hooking into it with a management tool, but it's extremely frustating.
Implication was made above that comparing hpux and linux means comparing ide and scsi - that's ridiculous. Linux does scsi just fine.
Implication was also made that HPUX is more secure than Linux - I'd have to say that a default redhat install facing the public leaves me feeling a LOT more secure than a default hpux install. HP brags about security, then refuses to stop releasing their OS with improper file permissions all over the place. Their openssh package of all things even includes world writeable files under /opt. Having said that however, I have no doubt that both OSes can be equally secured.
From a practical standpoint, being able to get HP to stand behind hpux is important if you're running critical apps. More important than the technical support is that they provide a scapegoat when things go wrong. :-)
From a management standpoint, hpux (and windows) is leaps and bounds beyond linux - glance is great and third-party apps like Unicenter are able to pull a LOT more data out of hpux than you can find in a month's worth of work in Linux. What process was consuming most of the cpu at 3am? This may be partially because the virtual memory management and scheduling were so in flux during the 2.4 linux kernel series that no one wanted to try hooking into it with a management tool, but it's extremely frustating.
Hockey PUX?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-25-2003 06:34 AM
07-25-2003 06:34 AM
Re: linux & hp-ux differences?
Oops, typo under 'LINUX O/S Loaders'
"...You can network boot from 'lilo',..."
should be
"...You CAN'T network boot from 'lilo',..."
(* FLAME ON! *)
"...You can network boot from 'lilo',..."
should be
"...You CAN'T network boot from 'lilo',..."
(* FLAME ON! *)
Support Fatherhood - Stop Family Law
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP