Re: RHAS vs. SLES

From: Leach <leach_at_none.invalid>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:37:56 GMT
Message-Id: <slrnbalv1k.es4.leach@none.invalid>

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Frank <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote:

> 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 Having said that, I do think RHAS is badly out of date.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.

Good. :)

>>
>> 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!

SuSE took the time to make it work -- they initially released SLES7 with 2.4.7 I think, and updated that to 2.4.18 eventually. (I think the bigger problem was glibc versions.) SLES8 is up to 2.4.19, and certified with Oracle.

>> 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?

The main trouble I've had is with Ethernet drivers -- lots of newer devices. Some newer hardware RAID devices.

RHAS does support the new devices, by having a driver disk handy during the install. It's a matter of taste.

> 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?

Yep, no GUI. In fact, the servers are half-way across the continent. I use yast primarily in curses mode. I could disable it, and edit the config files directly, but I find I like it. It is easy to just go along and do it the SuSE way.

I'm training Solaris admins on SuSE. We'll see how they like it. Could go either way. (Like me on Solaris, they normally edit files directly, but might be annoyed enough by the admin differences between Solaris and Linux that they might like it too.)

>> - 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.

I've had good experiences with reiser, but not hung up on reiser vs ext3 vs jfs/xfs/whatever.

Having the LVM layer gives a little bit more flexibility. We tend to add space incrementally by adding more hardware RAID luns. LVM makes it possible to manage that. Add the space to the LVM volume, resize the filesystem (offline or online, depending on capabilities and your taste for adventure.)

>> (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!

Cool.

>> - 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)

Yep, 8i and 9i configurations, including 9i RAC. It's on www.suse.com/oracle --> support matrix.

> 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.

-- 

Leach

Received on Sat Apr 26 2003 - 16:37:56 CDT