How effective is Linux as a Server

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Mike cco_uk wrote:

> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!
> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?
>
Forty years ago, Unix was born. It became a major operating system
for servers. Linux came along shortly less than 20 years ago, to bring
Unix to the rest of us, who couldn't afford or get Unix. Linux has
likely surpassed Unix for server operation, just because it's so
everywhere.

Unix was designed as multi-user/multi-tasking from the beginning. For
much of its life before Linux came along, you couldn't really afford to
use Unix as a single-user system, the OS was too expensive as was the
software to let a single user hog the system. When Linux came along,
it became a more single-user arrangement, not in terms of the actual
operating system, but it was now cheap enough, as was the hardware,
so people could run it without worry of cost. But it's the same
operating system that is used in server applications, and since
Linux is about being "unix" it's as viable for server applications
as Unix.

Note the reverse is true of Windows. It was designed as a single
user system, and any server use was built on top of that.

The difference is so much that some still argue that "linux isn't
ready for the desktop" while others will look askance at the idea
of using Windows for anything but a desktop.


Michael

On Sunday 30 August 2009 15:56, someone identifying as *Mike cco_uk*
wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/

> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases! [...]

*Anything* is better than Windows, and especially so for
mission-critical environments.

GNU/Linux runs on IBM mainframes and on the world's fastest
supercomputers. Windows supercomputers on the other hand are called
botnets. <grin>

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Mike cco_uk schrieb:

> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!
> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?

The TCO can be different, depending on the administration efforts of the
server contents.

DoDi

On Aug 30, 9:56 am, Mike cco_uk
<www.creditcrunchoffers.org....DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!
> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?

It Depends. Given that the dataabase is any of the open source ones,
and reliability and flexibility is needed, Linux is my top choice.
Even high-end commercial databases, such as Oracle, are well supported
and run well under Linux. The scalable is also vastly greater, and the
actual control over what is installed and what services exist is
vastly greater. (Do you want to share all the drives of your system
with anyone with a network administrator password? Try turning off the
\\hostname\C$ access in Windows!!!)

If the database is a modest sized one that is already well-supported
and popular, such as the account and system information LDAP services
and back-end databases built into Microsoft Active Directory, then you
may well be better off sticking with the familiar technology and
environment. As much as I loathe Microsoft's mishandling of the
underlying protocols in Active Directory, such as their weird handling
of ownership of DNS information, people who can do the grunt work of
managing such a server are a dime a dozen and client support is
already built into Windows, the single most difficult environment to
reliably integrate clients for.

Apple systems are, from harsh experience, an expensive joke for
fanboys. Every Apple server I've seen anyone buy has turned out to be
an unstable mess, purchased by a fanboy who didn't consult the years
or decades of experience around them and who quickly left the company.

UNIX systems have historically been interesting, but most of the
commercial and certainly the more powerful freeware databases have
been expanding or migrating to Linux suspport. And Oracle recently
bought Sun, so you can kiss Sun versions of UNIX goodbuy within 5
years: you may as save yourself a migration and slip over the Linux
world earlier.

Mike cco_uk <www.creditcrunchoffers.org.uk DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!
> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?

Here are some headlines to be aware of:

Big Corporations and Organizations Are Using Linux Based Systems

Microsoft Windows costs consumers billions in downtime, crashes and data
loss

Linux based systems are less expensive than Microsoft Windows based
systems

Microsoft Windows based systems contain security flaws by design

Microsoft introduce new bugs with each new release of Microsoft Windows

Microsoft Keeps System Administrators in the Dark Regarding System Flaws
and Vulnerabilities

Microsoft Windows applications may stop working following installation
of a service pack

Viruses, Intruders, Spyware, Trojans, Adware

GNU based systems provide better local area networking than Microsoft
Windows

GNU based systems are open source

Open source applications are less likely to be badware

Any problems with an opensource based system can be fixed

Open source vendors provide bug tracking and feedback facilities

GNU/Linux based systems provide true multi-user support

GNU based systems are better documented than Microsoft Windows based
systems

GNU based systems are safer, more secure, and are less prone to computer
viruses.

GNU based systems crash less than Microsoft Windows based systems

Microsoft Windows documentation is incomplete

Microsoft Windows is a manually operated system

Microsoft Windows Based Servers Just Won't Keep Serving

Engineers may not be able to fix Microsoft Windows

GNU/Linux based systems offer good interoperability

GNU based systems offer greater long term usability

Microsoft Windows Point and Click Interfaces are Labour Intensitive

Bugs in Microsoft Windows systems rarely get fixed and delivered to end
users

Microsoft Windows in Unsuitable for Use in Banks and Financial Institutions

Faulty Applications built into Microsoft Windows cannot be removed

Microsoft Windows causes significant compatibility issues

There are loads more articles, but those are definite reasons to prefer
a Linux based server solution over a Microsoft Windows based one.

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:05:13 -0400, Michael Black <et472.RemoveThis@ncf.ca> wrote:

....
>The difference is so much that some still argue that "linux isn't
>ready for the desktop" while others will look askance at the idea
>of using Windows for anything but a desktop.

Which is why I use windoze desktop box with a slackware box between
it and the big bad Internet

No longer write code for windows, much prefer to produce working
systems on linux that simply stay up. Unix/linux is so much easier
to write for -- and GUI is strictly optional.

But I'm one who sees a GUI as a simple method to get multiple
terminals on the screen, so I don't care if said terminals are
xterm or friends or PuTTY

If you want server apps to stay up for months at a time go linux.

MSFT do produce pretty eye-candy, but there's the old saying, if
you have a poor product, chrome it and charge extra.

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au

Mike cco_uk wrote:
> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!

When I wanted to set up a database under Windows 95, I bought Microsoft
Office Professional that included Microsoft Access. I had been using
relational databases since the late 1970s and even wrote one for UNIX at the
time, since none were commercially available at the time.

The database I wanted to set up had a dozen or so tables. The primary key of
one of the tables was a foreign key for all the other tables. Microsoft
Access would not even let me set up such a database, complaining I had
recursion in my definitions, which I had not.

I switched to (Red Hat) Linux (5.0) and installed Informix; it worked pretty
well, but did not have an interface to C++, only to C. So I had to write a
bunch of silly C programs to call the database, but other than that, it
worked. When Red Hat upgraded to RHL 5.2, Informix quit. I e-mailed
Informix, but they said too bad. Then I switched to IBM's DB2 and that
worked perfectly until I upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. By then,
Linux did not support raw file systems anymore, at least not the way DB2
used them. I could not afford to get the latest version of DB2, so I
converted to postgreSQL that works very well. I thought it would be slower,
but actually, with a little tuning, it runs faster than DB2 did on this machine.

> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?

My comparison was that Windows 95 would not run a real dbms and that
Microsoft Access had too many bugs to use. I.e., Windows 95 would not work
as a database server. Things may be better with current versions of Window
and Microsoft Access; I would not know, since I now hardly ever run Windows
at all, although I do have Windows (XP Home) installed on my old machine for
income tax preparation. And on Linux, all databases I have tried worked
quite well until I could not afford to pay for the upgrades required to
track my OS. postgreSQL works extremely well and it is free.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 19:00:01 up 3 days, 13:04, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.29, 4.27

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> Apple systems are, from harsh experience, an expensive joke for
> fanboys. Every Apple server I've seen anyone buy has turned out to be
> an unstable mess, purchased by a fanboy who didn't consult the years
> or decades of experience around them and who quickly left the company.
>
> UNIX systems have historically been interesting, but most of the
> commercial and certainly the more powerful freeware databases have
> been expanding or migrating to Linux suspport. And Oracle recently
> bought Sun, so you can kiss Sun versions of UNIX goodbuy within 5
> years: you may as save yourself a migration and slip over the Linux
> world earlier.

Apple is for people who dont understand computers and are proud of it.

MS is for people who think they understand computers and are proud of it.

Linux is for people who do understand computers and are not especially
proud of it.

On Monday 31 August 2009 10:08, someone identifying as *The Natural
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/

> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> Apple systems are, from harsh experience, an expensive joke for
>> fanboys. Every Apple server I've seen anyone buy has turned out to be
>> an unstable mess, purchased by a fanboy who didn't consult the years
>> or decades of experience around them and who quickly left the
>> company.
>>
>> UNIX systems have historically been interesting, but most of the
>> commercial and certainly the more powerful freeware databases have
>> been expanding or migrating to Linux suspport. And Oracle recently
>> bought Sun, so you can kiss Sun versions of UNIX goodbuy within 5
>> years: you may as save yourself a migration and slip over the Linux
>> world earlier.
>
> Apple is for people who dont understand computers and are proud of it.
>
> MS is for people who think they understand computers and are proud of
> it.
>
> Linux is for people who do understand computers and are not especially
> proud of it.

Microsoft Windows XP : "Where do you want to go today?"

Apple OS-X : "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"

GNU/Linux : "Are you guys still coming or what?"

:p

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Mike cco_uk wrote:

> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!
> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?

Linux is far superior. It's more efficient, more secure (provided you
know what you're doing, of course), is more widely used for
servers/web, more widely supported, allows you complete control over
everything. Comparisons will likely fail, as there are pro and con
sites. It depends on what technology you want or need to run, and the
type of database, too.

On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 06:56 -0700, Mike cco_uk wrote:
> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
> especially using databases!
> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
> Anybody know the comparisons?

Lots of variables. I mean, when talking about Windows, often cited is
Windows SQL Server... and that's not really available in a native form
for any Linux distro.

As far as Oracle, DB2, MySQL and Postgres goes... I think Linux has the
edge, but possibly just because the platform is more server oriented to
begin with. With Windows, the idea of a server was a second thought.

I don't think there is a compelling case either way from a performance
perspective, that is, the database tends to mask a lot of the
differences between the platforms.

One platform is significantly cheaper and much more reliable. So if
performance is negligible, and I believe it may well be for any database
of reasonable size, then IMHO, go with the more reliable platform with
better value.... and that's going to be a Linux distro.

On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 10:35 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
> On Monday 31 August 2009 10:08, someone identifying as *The Natural
> Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
>
> > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >
> >> Apple systems are, from harsh experience, an expensive joke for
> >> fanboys. Every Apple server I've seen anyone buy has turned out to be
> >> an unstable mess, purchased by a fanboy who didn't consult the years
> >> or decades of experience around them and who quickly left the
> >> company.
> >>
> >> UNIX systems have historically been interesting, but most of the
> >> commercial and certainly the more powerful freeware databases have
> >> been expanding or migrating to Linux suspport. And Oracle recently
> >> bought Sun, so you can kiss Sun versions of UNIX goodbuy within 5
> >> years: you may as save yourself a migration and slip over the Linux
> >> world earlier.
> >
> > Apple is for people who dont understand computers and are proud of it.
> >
> > MS is for people who think they understand computers and are proud of
> > it.
> >
> > Linux is for people who do understand computers and are not especially
> > proud of it.
>
> Microsoft Windows XP : "Where do you want to go today?"
>
> Apple OS-X : "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
>
> GNU/Linux : "Are you guys still coming or what?"
>
> :p

Linux: Go anywhere you want, anytime you want, anyway you want.

Apple: Going there is a journey and should be enjoyed no matter what
path you take. Just be happy and all will be well.

Microsoft: "Let me tell you where you can go!"

Chris Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 06:56 -0700, Mike cco_uk wrote:
>> I would like to know how Linux stacks up Windows as a server,
>> especially using databases!
>> It may be called a database server but I'm not sure.
>> Anybody know the comparisons?
>
> Lots of variables. I mean, when talking about Windows, often cited is
> Windows SQL Server... and that's not really available in a native form
> for any Linux distro.
>
> As far as Oracle, DB2, MySQL and Postgres goes... I think Linux has the
> edge, but possibly just because the platform is more server oriented to
> begin with. With Windows, the idea of a server was a second thought.
>
> I don't think there is a compelling case either way from a performance
> perspective, that is, the database tends to mask a lot of the
> differences between the platforms.
>

The compelling case is that most linuxes stay up as servers pretty much
forever. Memory leaks tend to crash windows ones regularly.

Unless you have to run some MS specific server app, in which case use
VMware and whatever ghastly windows version it runs on, I can see no
reason to ever put a native microsoft OS on a box for server purposes at
all.

Most people in large corporate envs in the UK have moved to Vmware.,
simply because if the department insists on Windows servers, they can at
least be rebooted remotely...and half a dozen or more can run on a
single linux running on some big server iron.

> One platform is significantly cheaper and much more reliable. So if
> performance is negligible, and I believe it may well be for any database
> of reasonable size, then IMHO, go with the more reliable platform with
> better value.... and that's going to be a Linux distro.
>


>
>