Re: Redhat vs Win2000

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> I *like* W2K, and it works a treat (waits for the usual ensemble of MS
> bashers to turn air blue). For stabilty, I wouldn't put Linux anywhere near
> it (but then I can configue W2K with my eyes shut, and haven't a clue about
> Linux). Therein lies the clue: it's not what you've got, it's what you do
> with it that counts. A crappily configured and maintained Windows box is
> crappy; so is a crappily configured and maintained Linux box.

1. The "Oracle Database Appliance" that Dell is selling is running SUSE, not any Windows variant. I assume that this decision was made after a fair amount of consideration on Oracle's part. They used to use NetBSD.
2. Please read: http://www.suse.com/us/press/press_releases/archive01/fast_center.html

I am running SUSE71 with 817; SUSE seems to be THE Linux Oracle platform; you should mostly abandon ideas of RedHat.

I don't want to get religious about it either, but these are some profound reasons to go Linux for a low-end server.

Please note that if you need 64-bit, you'll have to shop elsewhere (or wait to sink on the Itanic).

Advice:
1. Don't run the X server - client in from elsewhere. X crashes hard. 2. Use a 2.4 kernel, even if you have to patch Oracle. 2.4 can tune IPC

   parameters without recompiling. Not even Sun can do this, AFAIK - you    have to adjust /etc/system and reboot on Solaris. 3. Use LVM and Reiser, even for the root - /boot should be ext2 though.

   I don't like waiting for fsck at boot. Red Hat has said some pretty    damning things about Reiser, though.

   / Charles J. Fisher                   |"Dig within. There lies the spring /
  /  cfisher_at_rhadmin.org                 | of good: ever dig, and it will   /
 /   http://rhadmin.org:81               | ever flow."  -Marcus Aurelius   /
---------------------------------------------------------------------------