Redhat Vs HP-UX

[Bonny Jose_1]

Hi Experts,
What are the major points to be compared when we compare between HP-UX on HP9000 and Redhat on Intel server?
Thank you
Bonny Jose

[Pete Randall]

Bonny Jose.

Price and dependability and support.

RedHat wins on price.
HP-UX wins on dependability and support.

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how much you're willing to pay for it.

Pete

[Hai Nguyen_1]

Bonny,

I can't tell everything but try my best.

Redhat:
- run primarily on PC platforms.
- Open source.
- Supported by ?

HP-UX:
- run on HP proprietary Hardware platform.
- proprietary HP-UX OS software.
- supported by HP.

Hai

[John-Thomas Gaietto]

Bonny,
That's almost like asking what's the difference between Apples and Oranges.
HP-UX is a great enterprise environment OS, but only runs on a PA-Risc / Itainium platform, however the support is great. As for Redhat which is Linux and runs on both Itainium and x86 processors has a lot of Open Source Software support and the cost is a lot lower. Just my 2 cents. Hope it helps.

[Bill McNAMARA_1]

linux has much much more applications, such as kmines, that hp-ux, however, for serious commercial deployment, the applications running on hp-ux are much more solid.

Linux is a great alternative for the low end, non ha solution... ie workstation, webserver, ftpserver.. etc.

You could ask nearly the exact same question and get the exact same response with windows on ia and redhat on ia.

In any case, re the ia vs pa, linux supported hardware is extremely diverse, which makes support much more difficult. Don't expect rapid response times.

Later,
Bill

[George_Dodds]

Bonny it really depends on what you are going to be using the server for?
ie- whether it is to be used for an application that needs an ha enviroment, or just a simple ftp server.

Cheers

George

[Bill McNAMARA_1]

In fairness, redhat is supported.. by redhat, and often hp support some of their software on redhat/suse/debian installations.

Support and Training from redhat is suprisingly expensive..

A big + of linux is the staffing.. lot's more people are expert on it that with hp-ux.

All depends on your requirements and usage.

Later,
Bill

[Bonny Jose_1]

Thanks to you all.
The Server will be used for HA environment and since the solution would be on cluster there would be a huge difference in Prize between linux and Hp-UX solution.
The server will be running Large Oracle Database on it.
-Bonny-

[H.Merijn Brand (procura]

In that case, HP-UX has a *HUGE* advantage over Linux if the box is a multi-processor machine. HP-UX has much better support for MP than Linux.

Oracle /will/ take advantage of MP architectures if well configured

[Santosh Nair_1]

Actually, as for HA, HP has MC/ServiceGuard available for Linux:

http://www.hp.com/products1/unix/highavailability/ar/mcserviceguard/index.html

One thing that HPUX has that Linux doesn't have is manageability (sp?). Managing a Linux box is much more cumbersome than a HP box...mostly because all the pieces that make up HPUX is much better integrated than the same on Linux. But maybe thats a matter of perception (mine).

-Santosh

[Christopher Caldwell]

We've been doing a lot of research in the HA area of Linux.

My feeling today is that Linux isn't ready for HA in the HP/ServiceGuard sense.

There are architectural differences in hosts (for instance does your IA box run with split bus for internal drives, so one dead controller won't kill the whole box); hardware diagnostics also leave a lot to be desired.

When looking for clustering software for Linux (we've looked at SteelEye, MC/Service Guard, and others), they usually have pretty strict hardware qualifications for drives and for hosts. For instance, it's my understanding that the NetServer line has been forsaken for ProLiant, yet MC/Service Guard on Linux isn't "qualified" to run on ProLiant yet. (See http://www.hp.com/products1/unix/highavailability/ar/mcserviceguard/infolibrary/data_sheet602.pdf)

Other bothers include the use special quorum servers or other techniques, since Linux is immature when dealing with things like shared volume groups.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't build HA systems on Linux. Depending on your application, you can use things like NFS mounts to HP-UX servers in MC/ServiceGuard (for reliability) and Linux on the front end with free software that does IP migration during failure. But don't expect the same packaged environment you get with HP-UX.

If you're talking Oracle, that's a no brainer for me. At this time, I wouldn't consider Linux for mission critical database apps in HA.

[Shannon Petry · Accepted solution]

Since I have 2 linux clusters and 4 linux servers in the mix of many Sun's and HP's I'll give you a bit more food for thought.

1. Not all of them winders lock ups are winders related. PC hardware is much cheaper, and more prone to problems.
Like winders, Redhat does not support the hardware, so you will be trapped quickly in the inevitable blame game as soon as problems occur.
(SOLUTION: Buy the hardware+OS from a vendor like HP who supports both ends).
2. While there are lots of nifty games and text writers for Linux, this is not the main purpose of the server. There are very few applications to do hardware diagnostics, and mission critical service.
3. Downtime. Because of items 1 and 2, you should expect 3-4 times the downtime as with HP-UX on PA/RISC (Last I checked HP-UX on PA/Risc has a 2 hour annual downtime rating). Not bad when you compare this to the 60-80hrs annual downtime fer winders.

Mainly because of the downtime issue I would only recommend using Linux for non-mission critical applications. I.E. www, ftp, etc...
In most cases, if the company web site is down for a day, your company will not be out of business. If your payroll and accounting system is down for a day, your company will feel the loss.

Regards,
Shannon

[harry d brown jr]

Good question!

Both being a flavor of unix require some different knowledge skills, but the bottom line is that they are both "unix".

Each version of "unix" has its +'s and -'s. I basically started in unix on AIX many years ago (~13yrs on the RT), then moving to Ultrix and OSF (DEC's versions of "unix") for a few years, and now working in HPux for the past 7 years, solaris for past 3+ years, and linux for the past 5+ years. I'd have to say that the biggest difference is the tools to "manage" the system which fustrates some people, but that's life. But thinking about this some more I think the underlying issue will be the hardware and how the OS interacts with it.

What you need to ask yourself is what APPLICATIONS do I intend on running?

Which should lead you to which OS does the APPLICATION vendor support more favorably? Which platform will perform faster? Which will be more stable? Which is more scalable? Which is easier to maintain for that Application?

A lot of those answers will DEPEND upon the application you are running.

So the bottom line: IT DEPENDS.

[Pete Randall]

Bonny Jose,

The fact that you're talking about a HA environment implies to me that you're talking about a mission critical environment. If you weigh the cost of possible downtime against the "savings" of using linux on intel, I think you'll end up answering your own question.

I wouldn't even consider Linux in a case like this.

Pete

[Bonny Jose_1]

PC hardware is much cheaper, and more prone to problems.Mainly because of the downtime issue I would only recommend using Linux for non-mission critical applications. I.E. www, ftp, etc... -->I think the issue of H/W failure of intel machines can be taken care by properly doing the clustering of linux. So do we need to consider this as a point?

Support and training from Redhat is expensive---> good point.

HP-UX has much better support for MP than Linux. --> This I want to confirm.

Managing a Linux box is much more cumbersome than a HP box...mostly because all the pieces that make up HPUX is much better integrated than the same on Linux --> I agree with this point

Linux is immature when dealing with things like shared volume groups --> Need to confirm.

Redhat does not support the hardware, so you will be trapped quickly in the inevitable blame game as soon as problems occur. --> Strongly agree


While there are lots of nifty games and text writers for Linux, this is not the main purpose of the server. There are very few applications to do hardware diagnostics, and mission critical service --->Agree

Thank you guys
-Bonny Jose-