Re: RHAS vs. SLES

From: Frank <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:41:11 +0200
Message-ID: <3EAAD2C7.4050003@netscape.net>

Leach wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Kenneth A Kauffman <kkauffman_at_nospam.headfog.com> wrote:
>

>>Has anyone done comparisons of RedHat Advanced Server and Suse Linux
>>Enterprise Server (or United Linux)?  I'm interested in actual experiences
>>with installation, overall administration and performance of related
>>systems.

>
>
> I recently chose SLES over RHAS, but part of that is that I've
> used SuSE Pro for years. I am a lot more familiar with SuSE,
> so keep that in mind. Hopefully you'll get some pro-RHAS opinions
> to balance it out.
>
> Having said that, I do think RHAS is badly out of date. SLES8/UL1.0
> is a very fresh release, and very solid.
>

I'm more a RH guy, so I'll throw in a few cents.

>
> A few points:
> - RH seems to have stayed with relatively older kernels, and deal
> with bugs and driver updates based from there.

With good reason: Oracle was built against these "old" kernels. Just google Oracle 9i/RedHat9 and you will see what I mean. Darn - even 8i/RH8 will do!

> SLES tends to
> keep up with the new stock kernels, plus SuSE modifications.
> RH is a more conservative approach, but the downside is that
> you have to find and add drivers for newer hardware during
> the installation.

SCSI didn't change much last year. Who needs USB on a server? And DVD burners?

Looks worse than it is - RH (and SuSE as well, I suppose) support more exotic hardware nowadys than M$ products do.

>
> - I like yast. It is a comprehensive admin tool. Not perfect,
> but good. I especially like that I can use it as a GUI or CLI.
> (SLES7 was transitional between the older yast1 and newer yast2;
> SLES8's yast is a lot smoother.)
>
> The RH admin tools seemed more haphazard. I would have likely
> just ignored them and edited the files directly, after learning
> the RH ways of doing things like network initialization.
>

Yes - edit. No gui - this is a server, right?

> - SuSE has built-in support for LVM. This was an essential for
> me, as I don't want to get into third-party LVM products.
> The machines I'm targeting have hardware RAID (so the software
> mirroring tools are of no interest) but LVM is essential
> to managing volumes on top of the mirrored or RAID5 drives.
>

Referring to ReiserFS? Works for RH, too, but I've heard bad stories, especially performance-wise. Once crashed, recovery seems virtually undoable. Mind you - thru the grapevine; no experience.

> (RHAS doesn't have LVM, and isn't friendly to you using
> it in their kernel.)
>

Agreed.

> - SuSE's email list support, though free, is excellent.
> The suse-oracle list is very good, with people even asking
> questions about RHAS on it. The techs on the other end are
> very responsive. I never used RH's lists, so can't compare.
>

Used to be ok, though not as good as SuSE. Need a paid subscription nowadays, starts of at US$60/year

> - RHAS includes more phone support in the base packages, iirc.
> SuSE has two separate deals -- maintenance program and
> their support contracts. Maintenance is for software updates,
> support contract is for 24x7 telephone support.
>
> - The RH update network seemed more professionally done than
> SuSE's, but SuSE's is functional and reliable, just not as
> spiffy.

RH: Just schedule up2date - all else is automated, but configurable!

>
> - Redhat included cluster technology, with a hardcopy manual
> about it. Manual looked good, but I never checked into how
> well the clustering worked. Under SuSE, they provide the
> basic components for a heartbeat failover cluster, and the
> ldirectord stuff from Linux Virtual Server. I'm using
> heartbeat for Apache stuff, and it was easy to set up.
>
> - SLES7 had some rough admin spots (yast) but is very reliable.
> I used it first for Oracle systems before SLES8 came along.
> SLES8 (aka UnitedLinux 1.0 + SLES) is very very good.
>

Certified? Didn't check just now, but the last time it was SLES7 (and RHAS2.1)

And I agree with tngl: support, and reliability would be of more concern to me.
Both are coming up to enterprise level o/s's, but still have a way to go.

-- 
Regards, Frank van Bortel

Received on Sat Apr 26 2003 - 13:41:11 CDT