Slashdot Mirror
Replacing Novell with Linux?
RatzMilk asks: "The firm I work for has several clients who are still running Novell 4.11 which Novell is stopping support for in early 2001. As such they will require expensive upgrades to the latest version to be able to continue their support with Novell. I have suggested to one of the clients that they could replace their Novell with Linux which would have the added advantage of being able to utilize their existing hardware. The Novell upgrade would also require a hardware upgrade has well. They have agreed but their only concern was stability as the Novell boxen has been very reliable and Linux is an unknown to them. My company's policy is to provide the best possible support to our clients. My question to Slashdotters is, do you think I have made the right recommendation? Should I just do the switch with one client and see how it goes, or go the hole hog and recommend it to all?" Would Linux be the ideal solution in this case? Would BSD be any better or worse in this situation? And is holding on to the outdated hardware a good idea? As it is, systems can't go on forever, and depending on age of this system, maybe a full upgrade is a good idea.
A former customer of mine was very reluctant to upgrade the hardware of one server. The disk hosting the root filesystem was not large enough for the system to be upgraded to the current version, or even patched to the maintenance release.
Eventually the other drive failed. I had to spend 6 hours with a filesystem debugger fixing the filesystem enough to allow a backup to be taken. Then when I came to reboot the box the machine failed to boot altogether. As this was on a Saturday, and off the mainland, getting an engineer to look at it was impossible. And the existing drives were EDSI, the OS the Microchannel, and we couldn't move the drives to another machine, as we could locate anything suitable nearby.
It cost us a lot of money to replace the machine, and a week's work implementing the change. All because the hardware was now obsolete, and we were not able to get a valid backup before it failed. You'll probably have the same problem.
If what you are looking to do is to replace NetWare with Linux running NetWare emulation, such as marsnwe, you might want to take into account that it "looks like" a NetWare 3.x server to the clients. Since you mention you have NetWare 4.1, this would actually be a "downgrade" for you. Now, migrating to Linux is a different thing. If you only use NetWare for storage and printing, then that shouldn't be too painful to replace it with Linux. You'd still have to use Samba to allow any Windows clients to access it as an NT server. Depending on the size of your organization, switching your clients over could be a long, drawn-out process. There may be an easier way to do this, with or without Samba, marsnwe, etc., but not that I'm aware of.
Firstly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Secondly, if you can afford it, going to NetWare 5.1 is probably your best bet.
But in the meantime, here's some stuff to try.
You can run Novell clients and servers on Linux. Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 and up includes a Netware client which is fully NDS-aware, and you can integrate a Linux server into the NDS network so that, say, it uses Novell user authentication to get at resources shared with Samba.
There is also Netware for Linux. This runs a real live Netware 4.x server on Linux, but doesn't support NLMs, Netware filesystems etc. A free demo is available from www.caldera.com but you do need to buy licenses. Also, it only runs on kernel 2.0.35. However, you can probably pick up a copy of OpenLinux 1.3 very cheaply now!
There are some open-source Netware servers such as MarsNWE but they aren't NDS aware.
So add a Linux box now. It's cheap and you will learn useful stuff from getting it integrated with Netware.
But it's no replacement. Yet, maybe, but...
Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)
Novell is dropping support. So what?
When Novell drops support, you'll then have about the same level of support that Linux has. USENET, third-parties and else. If support is the issue, you're going in the wrong direction by going Linux. (Moderators: that's insightful not flamebait.)
Novell 4.x has been on the market for many years. It is about as rock solid as an operating system can get. Do you need really need Novell's support?
Unless you need some new Novell features, I would not upgrade. I've got 3.x servers still running. I know of a Novell server that has been up for nearly four years (no hardware problems, knock on wood) and no one knows the admin password. We've been through two Novell admins since it was installed and since nothing had to be done to it, it just sits there spinning. (This is not a suggested practice.)
If I did anything at all, it would be to upgrade the hardware only. I would not change operating systems nor would I change versions. Get the box on new hardware while it's still supported. If it runs for three months, it'll run three years. If, in a year or so, you decide Linux (or NT) would be a better choice, you've got good hardware to put it on.
InitZero
First, Novell is a company & Netware is a product. Novell makes a bunch of products and although Netware is their flagship being accurate tends to reassure customers.
Second the client already has Netware. Clearly it works well for them. Clearly it's integrated into their operations. They seem to have support for it, the users are used to it, the files and rights are likely well established and well understood. There are doubtless ancillary systems like backups, print servers, email, etc. that all rely on Netware that would need to be reconfigured or replaced should Netware go away.
Next support folks for Netware are easy to find and have well established credentials. Support for Linux or other comperable OS's is pretty much a dice-roll these days. Application support is the same - everything understands how to work in a Netware environment - few applications yet know how to optimize their file calls or locking in a Linux/etc. environment. Have a problem with Whizbang2000? Call their support line and say Netware or NT; it's a click in their decision tree. Say something unusual like Linux or BSD and the phonetech will go into a crash & burn, likely after first trying to blame your Linux/etc for the problem.
Look, I'm not knocking Linux or BSD varients or anything else. I'm just pointing out that there's a hell of a lot of issues involved in changing from one server OS to another. Lots (most) of these issues have very little to do with the quality or qualities of the OS itself but rather with external situations like legacy compatibility, support mechanisms and the basic horrors of reengineering a typically complex network environment.
To encourage a customer to change their server OS, particularly when it's one that they seem so happy with, is not to be done lightly. To encourage them to move to an OS that you & your company don't know well enough to even recommend a particular choice is sheer folly.
I can see suggesting Linux or some other non-traditionial OS (damn we need a word that encompasses Linux & the BSDs but leaves out the more obscure varients) for a client with a specific need for something not found in their current Server-OS-of-choice. I can even see encouraging them to use Linux/BSD/etc. in new deployments where there isn't much legacy material to worry about. I'd definately encourage them in cases where they've found thier current Server OS unsuitable or they've outgrown it (all assuming I was well familier with the specific product I was recommending.)
In your situation? It's a good thing your company is researching the alternatives. It's a better thing your boss will likely take your results, read them with interest, and not mention this to this client. Be cheered though that your studies won't have gone to waste as it wouldn't be suprising if soon some other client either requests Linux/etc. or has a situation where you folks can legitimately recommend Linux/etc.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Frankly most businesses with any technical acumen insist on a three year replacement cycle on things like x86-based servers. Why?
True lots of hardware chugs on happily year after year but it's also true that every day that pases after the originial burn-in period the device becomes more likely to fail. While failure of a home computer isn't a big deal (pop in a new power supply, replace the failed fan, whatever) in a business the results can be significent.
In the case of a file server failure many of the files that were in use during the failure may be truncated or damaged. Changes to them since the last backup may well be lost. Finding and replacing these damaged files can be a mess, popping up problems months or even years later. Employees are inconvienced when the services handled by that device are no longer availiable and the inevitable confusion results. The cost of even a a half hour outtage in a small business can quickly exceed the cost of a new server, in a midsize business it's a few minutes and in any large business any interruption of service is a serious issue.
The IS department is likewise disrupted with diagnosing the problem, determing the solution then picking up the pieces. Should the support be outside then there's the additionial travel time and a greater likelyhood of unfamiliarity with the device and it's functions leading to yet even more confusion and a longer outtage.
In short, spending the money on keeping hardware current is money well spent. Few businesses have any problems with understanding this need and will respect a 3-year lifespan on hardware.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I've been using Novell Netware since it ran on an XT (Netware/86- required 640k of RAM abt 1985). I've been a CNE since '93. I've been using Windows on my desktop since about '88 (2.0ish - 286 w/16MB ram). I've been using Linux since about 1992 (not sure which kernel - 0.something). I've used Solaris in an ISP environment since late 94. I've been using FreeBSD since about 95 (2.2.x). I've also set up/administered systems with NT, SCO, DYNIX/PTX (Sequent) and so on. I've also done my stint with low level programming and TCP/IP development, etc. etc. etc.
I've been consulting and doing independent system/LAN administration for at least 15 years, pushing the bleeding edge well before my clients.
Today, the best commercial product out there for File/Print is Netware. Period. Yes, it's expensive, but compare the bottom line with NT and you'll find that NetWare is actually much cheaper. I have printouts of servers which have uptimes of over a Year. I get calls over down servers usually only over a hardware failure, as that is about the only time it dies. In short it works and works well.
On the other side of the commercial arena is NT. I've supported NT. If I was into wanting to being able to bill my clients lots of hours and causing them lots of frustration, I would recommend NT to them. But in reality, I have more work than I can handle, so I don't. I'd rather see a customer put a peer-to-peer network in place than use a NT server. Note I'm talking about File and Print here. About the only place I'd use a NT server is in those applications where it is required for a specific need. And then, I would recommend that the client run that app and only that app on it.
Now, back to the question at hand.
Would I pull out a *working* Novell Server and replace it with ANY other OS just for the sake of being "supported" by Novell?
Nope.
Would I potentially consider using an alternative system in place of a Novell Server if the server needed to be upgraded?
Probably.
I'm going to digress a minute before I come back and explain that:
My opinion on Linux vs BSD (and FreeBSD in particular, as I haven't dove into the others yet) is that BSD makes a much better SERVER than Linux does, and that Linux makes a much better CLIENT than BSD does. For server applications, I would never consider Linux at this point. I just don't trust it as much as I do FreeBSD. I might be brainwashed by the BSD camp, so please don't flame me for this - but I really feel that the FreeBSD development methodology is better at producing consistent, stable, mission-critical code than the Linux method. I also feel that the Linux method is much better at getting those apps you NEED on the desktop ported.
That said, I would STRONGLY consider putting in a FreeBSD box running Samba to do file/print. I just haven't found the right client - well that's a little bit of a lie, the ISP I do sysadmin for has a corporate server running FreeBSD and Samba. To make a long story short - this client is more technical savy than most, and as such is better equipped to deal with the FreeBSD box.
In any case, it sounds like the original poster's client was worried about Support. About the only way you're going to get commercial support, is to upgrade Novell. (Or move to NT, but again I didn't mention that)
If they really aren't worried about support, I'd say leave the Novell server in place until such time as the server is not doing what it needs to do anymore (i.e. not fast enough, server old enough you're worried about relability, etc.) then look at the upgrade options. Then, if the client is technical savvy enough, consider a switch to a Open Source OS.
One piece of information which is lacking is the size of the firm this is for. In a larger firm, the value of Netware's NDS becomes much more critical. If you've got a hundred desktops managing them with Netware and NDS and ZenWorks is almost trivial cost-wise compared to any other option. In this larger environment the cost of the server licensing is dwarfed by the PC support costs.
One final comment - make sure you look at Novell's Netware for Small business. A 5 user upgrade is around $1000, or $200/seat, but it includes not only the Netware but also Netscape Enterprise server, A web cache, NetObjects Fusion (web editor), McAfee Netshield & Virusscan, Tobit Faxware and Groupwise. The added value of Groupwise Alone might pay for the upgrade costs.