Unix vs Linux

[Steve Sauve]

Hello all,
We use a mix of Unix (both HP-UX and Solaris) servers to run out main apps and databases. We also have a bunch of Linux systems running web apps. The question of "why not use Linux on our enterprise apps" has been raised.
So my question for all of you is where (and how high up) do you see Linux fitting into the IT environment and why? Also what (if any) factors would limit Linux from being the OS of choice on mission critical servers?
Thanks for any thoughts you might have.
Steve

[Patrick Wallek · Accepted solution]

The problem I would have running any apps that are critical to the enterprise is that there is, at least as far as I know, not any real support for the systems. If your system crashes because of an OS problem, what avenues are available to get the problem resolved?

With any of the main stream varieties of Unix (HP-UX, Solaris, AIX) you have a whole organization that has developed the OS and there is a sizable support organization as well should something go wrong.

With Linux being an open source OS, you may have pieces that have been developed by people all over the place and there may not be a way to get in touch with them should some piece of their code break.

Another issue I have is security. Again this goes back to Linux being an open source OS, and now you've got all these different varieties of Linux running around (Red Hat, Mandrake, Corel, SuSe, etc.), what's going to stop someone from programming a back door into the system that no one else knows about and then going out onto the Internet and finding those boxes and hacking them? I know that may be a bit paranoid, but can a sys admin afford not to be when it comes to the systems running enterprise-critical applications?

That's my 2 cents worth to start with. I'm sure I could come up with more if I really tried. :-)

[Rob Mallard]

Even more glaring weaknesses of Linux:

SMP support (yes SMP is supported, no does not come close to commercial UNIX - this will be fixed in the future)

Lack of LVM (I know one is on the way)

Lack of acceptable JFS (SGI is porting XFS, Veritas has a linux JFS in the works)

A GUI admin tool for newbies (linuxconf has a way to go)

Without these essential tools I would not consider Linux as enterprise ready. However, I expect that within 24 months neither my argurments nor Patrick's (above post) will be valid.

Some of my arguments may be lacking is my info is a little out of date (last month or so).

[Matt Livingston]

Steve,

My main issue with Unix vs Linux production servers would not be the OS or even the application software, it would be the hardware on which it is run.

Server hardware for commercial Unix platforms is usually designed to be rock-solid reliable, whereas hardware that Linux systems run on (Assuming you mean Linux on Intel)* is often made with a little trade-off in reliability against price. This may be a point either for or against Linux in your case, I have no way of knowing. If you have competent tech staff, they may be able to perform any required maintenance on the Intel hardware faster and cheaper than vendor-supplied engineers. If you go for a commercial Unix, you will most likely be running it on HP or similar high quality hardware, and have a much lesser chance of failure. It all depends on your business' requirements and acceptable risks.


* Certainly Linux can run on the same hardware as many commercial Unix flavours, but if for example, you are going to buy HP hardware, you might as well run HP-UX on it. (there, we're on topic now :)

[melvyn burnard]

One thing to possibly consider is that if you purchase the Linux box and OS (Red Hat currently I believe) from HP, you can take out a software contract with HP.
We will be supporting this OS through the normal channels including patch distribvution I believe.

[Pramod_4]

You have to see how HP and Intel ( IA-64) is projecting their new processor?

HP has already provided the support for their new baby in their widely accepted N-Class enterprise servers. Eventually such a rigid box will be capable of running Win,HP-UX,Linux and what ever you have by then.

Currently Linux is in lack of professional support, but I am sure that by the time IA-64 is out scenario will be totally different.

Pramod

[Darrel Louis]

Steve,

Check out with HP, because the A-class servers of HP can be released with Linux.
If you sell something you should support it aswell, I quess.

http://www.unixservers.hp.com/entrylevel/aclass/specifications.html

[Bill_6]

Linux in it's simplest form is just another "port" of UNIX. However, instead of being done by a big company like HP or Sun or whoever to run on a big custom piece of hardware, it was done by a college kid to run on his 386 because he couldn't afford anything better. Linux has just as much, if not more potential than any commercial version of UNIX. The real progress will com when big companies really start to push it's developement on the big iron. HP and so many others are just begining to do that. HP is supporting the port to PA RISC and has joined the GNOME Foundation, IBM's 390 is running it and their going to support it across the board, theres a port for Sparc and so many others are getting into the mix. I saw the starter kit for Oracle 8 on linux in Barnes&Nobles last night. Linux will make it into the enterprise level environment, it will just take time. I mean it's only been around for a decade or so and the main developement has been done by volunteers through the Internet. A scary fact to consider seeing how far along the OS is. Which brings me to my next point. I don't think the biggest impact will be from linux itself though. I think it will come from the developers and users. They are the ones who will effect the most change I think, because they will move into the enterprise along with the OS and bring their ideals and principles with them. So I guess maybe the question isn't is linux ready for the enterprise, it's is the enterprise ready for linux? ;-)

Patrick, I think you security concern is actually a non issue because the code is open and everyone can get it. I mean how sure are you that any commercial, closed source vendor hasn't put back doors in their code? You can't see the source so you don't know. I do agree that linux could use a strong auditing solution, like the one OpenBSD uses but thats really a different issue I suppose, with a different goal.

I suppose if your really paranoid you can roll your own version, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/