Re: Solaris vs. Linux sun vs intel ???

In article <9afbqc$epo$1_at_geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, toddg_at_linux127.ma.utexas.edu says...
> : I've seen the same thing mr. Schaap has, and I must say he is quite right.
> : In my company several Linux machines have been running. Just recently we
> : started testing with a SUN Enterprise 250.
> : The amount off time and effort we have to put in to keep the Linux-boxes
> : going, doesn't compare to the efforts for the SUN.
> : I admit I've never physically worked on either of the two, but I have seen
> : the consequences.
> : Instead of having 1 person full time on the Linux machines, and 2 DBA's in
> : support behind him, we have 1 guy working half-time without backup on the
> : Sun...
>
> ...and I *have* physically worked on both, and I don't think you're seeing
> an unbiased comparison! Did you have different sysadmins? Did they have
> sufficient training in their respective fields? Experience? How can you
> even *have* 3 full-time people supporting equivalent systems that a
> part-time person can handle? I suspect that those 3 people are not the
> cream of your organization....
>

What you missed is that one Sun box is replacing many linux boxes. One sysadmin can take care of only so many boxes. I have seen this before with a different system. At the time I had 44 microvaxes deployed in the field. I took a staff of 8 to keep up with them. Upgrades were a nightmare as we had to do them 44 times. Keeping track of things was a 3 ring circus. We replaced the microvaxes with a vaxcluster (multiple machines, one system disk). Staff dropped to 2. We only needed 2 because it was a mission critical system and we wanted back up. Does the fact that we didn't need the other 6 any reflection on their abilities? No, they were excellent people. In this case there were many benefits to upsizing.

Liz Received on Thu Apr 05 2001 - 08:30:16 CDT