Daredevil
Verified User
As the title implies:
'Which O/S are you using for DA servers'
Let's see what the masses are using
'Which O/S are you using for DA servers'
Let's see what the masses are using
Last edited:
[Poll] Which O/S are you using for DA servers?
- Thread starter Daredevil
- Start date
charliecreed
Verified User
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 56
I use Debian due to its great Security.
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
We use CentOS on new installs because CentOS is a free as in beer version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and DA is built for RedHat first.
We do have one or two machines still running on RHL 7.3, but we're almost done pulling them out of service. You left Red Hat Enterprise Linux out of the poll, so I added it. It will be interesting to see how many of us choose to pay for RHEL when we can get CentOS free.
Jeff
We do have one or two machines still running on RHL 7.3, but we're almost done pulling them out of service. You left Red Hat Enterprise Linux out of the poll, so I added it. It will be interesting to see how many of us choose to pay for RHEL when we can get CentOS free.
Jeff
Daredevil
Verified User
jlasman said:
Jeff,
I'm quite interested in hearing why you chose CentOS over the Fedora distribution, both distributions are 'free as in beer' and both are based on Redhat.
Thank you for adding RHEL to the list, as you might know 10 poll-options was the board maximum.
Last edited:
Daredevil
Verified User
charliecreed said:
A system is as secure as the administrator makes it, but let's not talk clichés
.As with my question towards Jeff I'm quite interested in what it is that you think/feel Debian holds over other operating systems security-wise?
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
There are several reasons to not use Fedora, and if CentOS (and the other free-as-in-beer distributions of RHEL) didn't exist I still wouldn't use Fedora.
In fact I was working with a few others on a RH-based distribution specifically for webhosting when I decided to move to WBEL (and later CentOS) instead.
The most important reason is that Fedora is a fast moving distribution designed specifically for experimentation. It doesn't stay at a revision level (with supported updates) long enough to ever be stable.
And that's not just my opinion. If you look around the 'net you'll find that event the Fedora team say it's NOT for enterprise use.
Jeff
In fact I was working with a few others on a RH-based distribution specifically for webhosting when I decided to move to WBEL (and later CentOS) instead.
The most important reason is that Fedora is a fast moving distribution designed specifically for experimentation. It doesn't stay at a revision level (with supported updates) long enough to ever be stable.
And that's not just my opinion. If you look around the 'net you'll find that event the Fedora team say it's NOT for enterprise use.
Jeff
Daredevil
Verified User
*Pounce*
Keep on voting fellas!
Keep on voting fellas!
Too bad, this is not a multiple choice poll
We have been using FreeBSD almost exclusively for years and I still think it's the best choice for older boxes.
Unfortunately, performance wise it's not well suited for hosting environment nowadays: FreeBSD 4.x can't take advantage of HT or dual processors as its SMP kernel has too much extra locking, FreeBSD 5.x doesn't run MySQL very well to say the least and FreeBSD 6.x 64bits isn't officially supported yet by DA
So, for the new dual processor servers we use CentOS and since having different OSes adds significant overhead, we are planning to drop FreeBSD completely eventually.
Atm we have servers running FreeBSD 4.x, FreeBSD 5.x, CentOS and even Red Hat 9.
FC isn't really suited for production environment.
We have been using FreeBSD almost exclusively for years and I still think it's the best choice for older boxes.
Unfortunately, performance wise it's not well suited for hosting environment nowadays: FreeBSD 4.x can't take advantage of HT or dual processors as its SMP kernel has too much extra locking, FreeBSD 5.x doesn't run MySQL very well to say the least and FreeBSD 6.x 64bits isn't officially supported yet by DA
So, for the new dual processor servers we use CentOS and since having different OSes adds significant overhead, we are planning to drop FreeBSD completely eventually.
Atm we have servers running FreeBSD 4.x, FreeBSD 5.x, CentOS and even Red Hat 9.
FC isn't really suited for production environment.
jlasman said:
I actually switched FROM RHEL to CentOS
. I like the community better, and the ability to add more servers, without the cost overhead... in fact, I think I have 1 or 2 RHN licneses that aren't being used -Robert e. Plummer
PP&F NetWorks, LLC
Daredevil
Verified User
Bump
Daredevil
Verified User
Bump. Let's see how we are doing these days.
That should not be the reason why you should be running CentOS. The reason you should be giving;
1) It out performs all the other OS's
2) Its the most stable of all the RH OS's
Too bad, this is not a multiple choice poll
We have been using FreeBSD almost exclusively for years and I still think it's the best choice for older boxes.
Unfortunately, performance wise it's not well suited for hosting environment nowadays: FreeBSD 4.x can't take advantage of HT or dual processors as its SMP kernel has too much extra locking, FreeBSD 5.x doesn't run MySQL very well to say the least and FreeBSD 6.x 64bits isn't officially supported yet by DA
So, for the new dual processor servers we use CentOS and since having different OSes adds significant overhead, we are planning to drop FreeBSD completely eventually.
Atm we have servers running FreeBSD 4.x, FreeBSD 5.x, CentOS and even Red Hat 9.
FC isn't really suited for production environment.
..and you left out the 6.x 32bit version. Whats wrong with 6.x 32 bit? Are you sure your stats are correct? We run all 6.x FreeBSD and its one of the best and outperforms all the others hands down.
sligh
Verified User
For me it was a toss up between Debian (born here in my home town) and CentOS... I eventually decided on CentOS 4.4 as I have quite a few more years admin experience behind a RedHat based OS.
64bit version outperforms 32bit version by 10%-30% on simple benchmarks, I assume the gap might be even bigger in production environment under certain circumstances.
Also, at the time that post was written, 32 bit version was technically in beta and 64bit version wasn't supported at all, as far as I can recall.
I guess it all depends on what you are using these servers for.
It's quite possible that for your tasks FreeBSD runs better performance-wise.
It's also possible that you simply don't realize you could get performance boost by switching to Linux. Do you happen to have Linux vs FreeBSD benchmarks that would support your argument?
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
But that's either not true or it's an oversimplification.
Since it's built from RHEL source, it doesn't outperform RHEL, and it's not more stable than RHEL.
It is less expensive than RHEL.
Jeff