Buying Unix?

BarefootClown asks: "I'm currently the sysadmin for the University of Oklahoma Aviation Department. (I know the website looks horrible, it's being redesigned right now by somebody with talent.) Our systems here include two Intel-based servers, one running Windows 2000, one running Linux. The webserver is running on the Linux box. We need a new server, as the old one is about to die (I've lost two of the six hard drives, only one of the two processors is working, and it's just old--we got it second-hand). My boss has been very indulgent in letting me put Linux on a few boxes here, including the webserver, and a couple of web-only terminals (weather/flight planning stations), but he's expressed concern that, if I were to leave my job for some reason, having *nix machines would leave the department unsupported, and out of luck if problems were to occur. Our official departmental (one level up) support channel doesn't support Unix (he didn't support Windows 2000 until the end of last year...), though I might be able to talk to Campus support. This is all becoming a concern because I want to replace the dying box with a Sun NetraX1, which (obviously) doesn't even have the option of running Windows. Any suggestions on how I can convince my boss that it's worth doing? The price on that box is fabulous, at just a bit over a thousand (US) dollars out the door. The nearest PC/Linux box from Dell is about $1400. It seems to me that I know enough *nix people on campus who are looking for jobs that he wouldn't have trouble finding support if I were to leave. How do I convince him that Unix isn't that big of a risk?"

Comments

Not a good idea.

[Chasing Amy]

> For less than half the cost of that Sun POS, you can build a box that will handle quite a load if you build it from generic parts.

Yes, and then he could get cursed out by his bosses if/when a part fails. Look, I build my own machines for my own personal uses, like most people here. But for a real corporate/institutional server, that isn't a safe, accepted option.

See, if the Sun box dies, Sun will fix/replace it within the contractual period, and Sun will be to blame for the malfunction. If however "IT Guy" builds the server and installs *nix himself, "IT Guy" gets all the blame when something hardware or software goes wrong.

So, Sun [or IBM/Dell/whatever] is safe, while DIY is dangerous, in a real-world server environment--if you're the guy responsible for it.

I must question the Sun purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought 4 of those Netra X1 boxes over a year ago for my own department, to host lab computations for a chemistry course. They are nice boxes, with good density (you can cram a lot of 1-U cases in a rack), low power consumption, the serial console management is great, and, of course, Solaris isn't a bad OS.

However, they are meant to be disposable boxes, targeting data centers where it's desireable to add new identical machine as demand increases. That is, you can't upgrade the CPU, the memory tops out at 2GB, max of 2 x 40GB IDE drives, and no external expansion (unless the built-in USB ports can host drives -- yuck). Specs are here if anyone's curious.

We chose the Netras because the chemistry software required Solaris (well, given the choices, we took the Solaris version). I personally would have perferred Linux servers, and since you have the choie, I recommend the same.

Others may say that the support built into machines by the "big players" (IBM, Sun, Compaq, etc.), plus the turn-key state of the machine out of the box, amounts to a non-trivial savings of your time (which equals your employer's money).

I beg to differ.

In addition to many Athlon-based Linux servers, I manage Solaris, AIX, and IRIX machines, each of which either have or have had vendor support. While it's nice to pick up the phone and have either a new part or a service engineer on-site within 4 hours, the bottom line is that these servers need to be back up ASAP. I have found the the comodity-based solution to be better in that respect.

You see, we use a tried-and-true local PC vendor, who builds to order. If a part goes bad, I can have a replacement in an hour or two, unless it is unusually exotic (rare). So commodity wins in hardware matters.

For software issues, I hit Google. I don't want to toot my own horn too much, but if I get stumped by a software issue, I have never had vendor support get me any further than telling me to apply the next service pack (which I end up doing anyway). Maybe I don't push the envelope, but this guy is replacing a web server -- how much will it push the envelope?

Having said all of that, don't compare apples and oranges. High-end servers have they're place. The IBM system I admin waits until I schedule a downtime, most hardware failures be damned. But the yearly maintenance fees alone could by a dozen of the boxes this guys wants to buy. But I think commodity has proven itself, and I'm planning on replacing our IBM NFS server with a Athlon/Linux solution.

Concerning the Windows 2000 competition... It probably would be eaiser to find a replacement admin who could maintain the status quo -- but that's it. Finding someone who really knows their stuff (in NT or UNIX) will take more time and money. But given a choice between an equal UNIX and NT admin, I'd prefer to have the UNIX guy, as I feel the skillset is more valuable -- but that, of course, is only my opinion. Plus, if the machine is properly documented, any competent admin can come in and take over. Technical merits of the OS aside (I prefer UNIX), I'd push Linux as there will never be a license fee and system requirements for Linux don't climb as quickly as NT as the OS progresses (for server boxes -- try running Win2k/IIS on anything less than a Pentium -- though modern Linux desktops suck up resources, too).

Plus if you buy Intel-based hardware and go Linux, you're employer can convert to whatever version of NT is in at the time (provided it doesn't obsolete the hardware -- snicker). You get no such option with Sun hardware (though you can go Linux or *BSD).

To put my long rant into perspective, I got my NT4 MCSE cert in 1997, while I was in charge of a 60-user windows network for 3 years. As stated in my post, I mostly admin UNIX boxes now. While I don't have a grudge against NT, I think the pros of UNIX and Linux outweigh those of NT, especially for server machines.

My take on it...

[Polo]

I've used solaris pretty extensively to manage my own systems at home, and I've found it one of the most stable operating systems around. On sun hardware, it is usually flawless.

If you looked around, I think you could find some intel-based servers that would compare favorably with the sun system on price, especially if you don't need rackmount.

But a lot of problems have been solved with the sun hardware. The best part about the Netra X1 / V100 is that you can control the entire box through the serial port. You can power it up and down and boot it remotely. I've never seen a PC do this to my satisfaction. Other good points include dual ethernet interfaces and registered ecc dram (although it is standard pc memory). I wonder how easy it is to upgrade the disk storage.

However, out of the box, it's not really that secure. I would definitely add a firewall. I think the newer versions of solaris give you a limited firewall. Another option is to install ip_filter. I would then filter out everything but ssh and web services.

Another point I'd make is that since sun stopped supporting solaris x86, I've moved some of my home machines to linux and subscribed to the redhat network. Wow, a lot of things sure got a lot easier. Many services that you would have to install manually on a solaris machine were already there. It came with the latest versions of openssh, sendmail with procmail, apache with SSL, iptables, squid, samba and more. In very little time I had a secure system with everything working. Obscure packages could easily be found and installed, which isn't always the case with solaris. The redhat network ($60/yr) keeps you up to date with package updates and security patches, and there's a utility called 'up2date' that will install them all for you. Heck you can update your kernel remotely - it's much easier than windows.

Support IS importatnt

[Beltza]

In all the reactions I have read so far, I only see comments about how wonderful UNIX is and that this specific department should shift.
However, I think that the boss DOES have a big point. The fact that SUN has great service does not mean that this server and its applications are supported. And the fact that you might know somebody who might also be able to support the machines doesnt sound like a solid solution to me.
I would suggest focussing on the support side than on the hardware/OS side. I think your boss trusts your opinion enough to agree that SUN tecnically offers the best solution. What you need to do is to write a proposal about how you are going to find and involve the others, train them and form a support TEAM. Because only a team is able to ensure support. Of course, if you calculate the costs of all this, it might be more than the costs of a Windows box, but for this money youll have a hell of a box and subsequent servers will be a lot cheaper.