Linux From A CIO's Perspective

An anonymous reader writes "CIO.com has a story on Linux and OSS in the enterprise from the perspective of the CIO of Cendant Travel Distribution Services, Mickey Lutz. 'In the summer of 2003, Mickey Lutz did something that most CIOs, even today, would consider unthinkable: He moved a critical part of his IT infrastructure from the mainframe and Unix to Linux. For Lutz, the objections to Linux, regarding its technical robustness and lack of vendor support, had melted enough to justify the gamble.' His organization saved 90% in costs in so doing. Read on if you want to see how the top brass views OSS."

Comments

I'm reading through this and it's interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two things I find really interesting here:

1. Vendor support. OK, so if vendor support has gotten better, then which vendors does this CIO recommend? I don't see which ones he used in the article, maybe I just missed something.
   
2. This quote

   "Open source is propelling us to adopt Java and a new way of programming," he says.

   Should be a bit of a cluebat for both Sun and the Open Source extremists. Java and Open Source can be extremely good for each other, it's just that both Sun and the Open Source community need to learn to cooperate on practical matters with those whose ideological goals differ... unfortunately it seems that neither Sun nor the Open Source community is extremely interested in realizing how much they could benefit from the other.

Cost breakdown

[alvinrod]

Mainframe: $100 million

Unix: $25 million

Linux: $2.5 million

These numbers were taken from a table in the article. Interestingly enough, the cost if something does break favors Linux as well. From the same table we get that the mainframe solution consists of 4 IBM mainframes, whereas Linux and Unix solutions require around 144 servers for Linux and 100 - 120 servers for Unix. If the hardware goes to hell it's so much easier to replace the single bad part than a mainframe.

Hopefully, more people will begin a transition to open source solutions when they realize it can be successful.

Re:Difficult, but big payoff

[stefanlasiewski]

The issue is that you're working without a safety net. If things go really wrong, there's no backup army of specially trained techs to run in and fix things.

Well, there is a backup Army, and it's you.

Google can have a 4000-node Linux cluster because they have enough staff to maintain and optimize the system (Keep an eye on their job pages to get an idea).

Google also has some highly specalized needs-- some machines only crunch data for the DB, other machines only serve webpages, etc. It's in their interest to optimize the Kernel, OS, Database & Web applications as much as possible. Take a tweak which gains a 1% performance gain, multiply that against 4000 machines, and it's quite an advantage.

There isn't a vendor in the world that can totally support their infrastructure, so Google does it themselves.