Slashdot Mirror
Unreliable Linux Dumped from Crest Electronics
nri writes "The Age writes, Linux misses Windows of opportunity. Crest Electronics chose a Linux operating system, then seven months on, the company chose to abandon it for Windows.
Mr Horton says. ".. the machine would basically, putting it in Windows terms, core dump or blue screen at random. It would run for weeks or so and then just bang, it would stop....I fully support Linux but if I had to make the decision again I'd pick Windows. A big reason is the fact Windows was up and running in two hours at all the right patch levels. The installation of SAP took two days on Windows, the installation on Linux Red Hat took two weeks. The total cost of ownership is actually lower in this case than with Linux because of the hidden costs of the support.""
Anyone that says that Linux will beat out Windows in every situation is a fool.
Choose the product that best suits your needs. If Linux doesn't cut it, get Windows. If Windows doesn't cut it, get Linux.
It costs money to hire qualified admins, Windows or Linux.
"the machine would basically, putting it in Windows terms, core dump or blue screen at random"
whereas you can expect windows to core dump periodically and predictably.
Odd that the Windows terminology for the blue screen of death now seems to be the standard term for a computer crashing. Or maybe that's not so odd.
(please don't mod this as funny, I am very serious here.)
I wish he would have given us more information regarding the problems he ran into. I'm talking about system specs, the name and version of the Linux distro used, and more information regarding the software they apparently had so much trouble installing.
When problems do happen, the open source community is notorious for getting them fixed very quickly. If he were to provide us, the community, with more details about the problems he encountered, I just know they could be solved for him and potentially for many other users in a similar boat.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
This whole article is useless without really saying what the crash was. You could have the most rock solid stable server in the world, and it won't mean much if the applications you're hosting are buggy and badly implemented. It would be nice to know to EXACTLY what crashes he was getting and why. Not just "Uhh, there were core dumps and blue screens, but with a linux blue instead of microsoft blue." I think this would be a great opportunity for an Ask Slashdot poll. Maybe he'd even post some of the core dumps.
It may be true in some cases that Windows runs more stable than linux. I have seen some flakeyness on more bleeding edge distros, X11 crashing, apps crashing. One of my boxes, I have troubled hardware support for my Promise SATA controller and large data transfers would cause system lockups all the time. Supposedly this is fixed in kernel 2.6.12. But I'm running Windows XP on that machine so I don't really know. But really, XP stablity isn't all it's cracked up to be. I have to reboot often (~once a week). Things just slow down and get really sluggish after ~ 2 weeks, or less.
But hardware/driver issues aside, I don't believe Windows can be more stable than linux. If you don't have to run Windows for some specific compatibility/software requirement. Linux can be a far superior experience.
That the decision to go Linux was made by his predecessor.
Looks like 'new manager' syndrome to me...
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
I've known many, many, many people who swear by Linux's reliability and uptime. When I look at their load usage, it's alway like "0.01, 0.01, 0.02" or some such low usage box. Chances are, if they are running SAP, that box is loaded. Or overloaded. And then, things can sometimes get more dicey. A device driver that works okay under low-load is fine, but then when the commands are stacking up it barfs. Or some hardware that's been only marginally fast enough is exposed as underperforming (especailly hard drives and FSB). Performance degrades quicker than expected very often, and resources can easily become exhausted. I love Linux, but often people who swear by it have never seen the pain of a truly heavily loaded Linux box. It's much better now that a lot of sweat has gone into the scheduler.
When a program dumps core, it means that the program did something that it wasn't supposed to do (like try to read memory that isn't valid) and the operating system has (correctly), stop the program's execution, and to make life easier on developers, copied the program state into a handy file so that the problem can be debugged. No other programs on your system will be harmed by this one malfunctioning program.
When Windows blue screens, it means *the operating system* has done something it wasn't supposed to do (like try to read memory that isn't valid) and the operating system bails. Often, it will return execution to the next instruction and hope things will be okay. It almost certainly isn't. You're basically screwed.
The equivalent in Linux is an Oops. They don't happen that often on production systems. A crappy properitary program doing things it's not supposed to is *not* a Linux problem nor an Open Source problem. It's SAP's problem.
This is a testimonal about the crappiness of SAP and nothing more. They obviously didn't do enough testing on Linux.
"The Best Run Businesses Run SAP" is a true statement... SAP says it over and over again. What they're really stating is that only the best run businesses can survive a SAP implementation, the rest run out of money or patience, or worse, end up being driven out of business by the enormous cost and disruption it causes. SAP has a HORRIBLE track record on linux. They claim support for linux and other non-MS platforms, but that's only for their core products. Everything outside of CRM and R3 is riddled with technotes and disclaimers about needing MSSQL and WINDOWS. They don't really write cross-platform systems, they just make claims and back them up with fine-print disclaimers.
I just left a company that was $10M and 2 years behind on their "$2M" SAP implementation. It's a joke. Once SAP gets their foot in the door, they flood your company with incompetent consultants and rebuild your business around SAP-approved procedures and architecture. At the end of this clusterfuck you end up WAY over budget and desperately looking for a scape goat. Clearly Crest Electronics chose Linux.
SAP products require patch after patch, and take MONTHS to really install. We had a team of engineers working around the clock (literally) for 5 months to get our base systems set up to SAP specs. Even then we would receive "mystery" patches, frequently resulting in system crashes as they weren't designed to work with other patches. Bottom line - SAP is the problem. They churn out highly unstable software and have armies of consultants who will sweep problems like this under the carpet or find something else to blame.
Blue screen is a Windows thing but core dump is not.
Crest Electronics is trialling Microsoft's Windows Server Update Service, which allows automatic patching for the operating system and other Microsoft software on servers and desktop machines across a corporate network. Its benefits are one of the key reasons why Mr Horton stands by his decision to switch from Linux to Windows.
"We run Linux on our web server and for an accounting package with great success and we do use the auto-patching in those environments,"
I work in a Windows shop but we don't do automatic patching. We don't patch until we've done extensive testing on our own to make sure it works in our environment first. SUS/WUSS/whatever is great in the sense that it allows you to control how patches to your Windows workstations are distributed. You can change the workstations' auto-update behavior so they only update from your SUS servers, etc. But the automatic update thing, from what I've heard, is rarely used in a production environment. In fact, Microsoft gives you a considerable amount of control over its behavior, probably because in recognition of the dangers of auto updating in a production environment.
Mr Horton disagrees: "It might be fine for things like security patches, which don't impact SAP certification rules but with some patches you still actually have to check the release levels and then check against the SAP site. Otherwise SAP might ask you to roll back to the previous version before they will support it."
Give me a break! The same thing happens in the Windows environment. It took Bloomberg and our other vendors a while before they supported Windows XP SP2. When SP2 first came out, a lot of vendors blamed SP2 for problems that may or may not have been SP2's fault. It took Windows vendors a while to adpot SP2 as well.
In any case, the whole patching issue he takes with Linux seems absurd. Just a few days ago, I think our server guys patched their cluster with a Microsoft service pack. Now the cluster refuses to fail over properly. Patching in a production environment is ALWAYS a big headache if you want to do it right. Unfortunately for our server guys, we don't have a spare cluster sitting around for them to test patches on like they normally do with other servers.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
A good friend works as an SAP and Retek consultant for Accenture. His installs and integrations have lasted almost 2 years (Nordstrom took 3).
My
Yes, because we totally believe that you came up with that arguement on your own. "Total cost of ownership" is a natural concept which simply develops in natural language, like swear words based around bodily functions.
It's been a long time.
It's a German company that sells quite rather a lot of software. Whole large businesses run on it, and a cheap installation starts in seven figures and goes up from there. It's a serious suite of software. Check "SAP Specialist" in your favourite job search engine and check the rates they're getting for clue 2. They're big, as in first-page-of-Hitchhiker's-Guide big.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
SAP is one of the biggest software companies in the world. Very, very heavy duty business apps for large companies. Factories. Big retailers, etc. All sorts of "vertical" apps in everything from apparel to insurance.
One doesn't usually run anything from SAP without a small army from SAP (or one of their annointed consulting firms) completely stroking the install. They don't usually tolerate failed installs. And there's usually a LOT of money involved in these installations, and a lot at stake. SAP products are rarely used with modifications and customization to both the infrastructure and the apps themselves.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
from TFA: "We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue," Mr McLaren says.
Do you observe that lately if someone puts Windows instead of Linux is news.
Just like: a dog bites a man is not news, but a man bites a dog is. That's telling.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Only an absolute moron would admit to that. You have idiots working for you fire them immediately! With absolutely no experience with any unix/linux system and very little windows experience, I setup a mail server, webserver and started creating a website for a company. I did that back in 1996 with RedHat 5 & a Linux for Dummies Book. Linux has come a long way since then. If they can't figure out how to install a modern linux distro in less than 4 hours, you should not be let near any computer ever! I could build a PC clone system from parts and install Fedora Core 4 configure it with apache, mysql, ftp and secure it before lunch. I've done it several times at work.
That's very true. SAP is a very complicated application and it takes an extreme amount of patience both to install it and to keep it working correctly. In other words it takes an administrator who knows how to interpret the SAP documentation and then follow that documentation in a very, very precise manner. I've installed SAP Enterprise on RedHat 2.1 more than a couple of times. The RedHat portion of the installation is so easy that I cannot imagine how anyone could screw it up. It's really the steps following the RedHat installation where an administrator can get into trouble. This includes memory settings and some really crucial environment variable additions in the system profile. Get one of these wrong and a SAP installation will quickly turn into a major headache. But if the instructions from SAP are followed step by step, then the whole process can be done in about 6 to 12 hours (depending on the speed of the machine). We currently have 5 SAP systems running on RedHat Advanced server 2.1 and I cannot ever remember an outtage that was related to an issue at the OS level. It has been a rock-solid stable set of systems that require little intervention. The SAP documentation is so stupidly complicated that one literally has to spend days reading it before attempting an installation. If these admins tried to shortcut that process, then obviously made a mistake. Thanks, - J. Haynes Helena, MT
for example, if you only have one copy of zlib on your system, and it's managed by the OS vendor (up2date, apt, or similar), then you only have one copy of zlib that can be exploited, and you only have to worry about applying your vendor's updates to keep all of your zlib activity patched.
if you have 80 copies of zlib, each one shipped by a different application that uses the library, you've got a frigging mess on your hands, and you've probably got no hope of patching them all if there's a security bug.
what we need is more centralization of libraries, not the wild-west free-for-all that would result from what you're advocating.
That's if you're lucky, normally they'd throw a chair at you.
Chances are, if they are running SAP, that box is loaded. Or overloaded. And then, things can sometimes get more dicey.
I've run busy mail servers hosting about 6,000 email addresses. I've seen a server run with a load average between 2.0 and 20.0, 24x7 for WEEKS ON END without any complaints. A full megabit of traffic, 24x7, just for EMAIL...
I've seen millions of website hits per month, month after month, year after year. No complaints, reliability simply excellent. And, I've seen this using Linux kernel 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6.
Sorry, pal. Maybe it's true for some other slashweenies, but in my experience, the reliability of Linux IS truly legendary, and is why I've standardized on Linux anywhere I can possibly use it.
Heck, when I'm putting together a new, high-capacity system, one of the first things I do is load a series of "torture tests" and run them. I put the server through its paces, running with a load average between 5.0 and 10.0, compiling the kernel or PHP in a loop, copying files, reading large files into memory and clearing memory out, while stressing whatever service the server will be using. (EG: if it's a mail server, while all the above is running, I have a script sending 10,000-20,000 emails per hour to 25 pseudo-accounts, while another script POPs them all to the bit bucket. If it's a web server, I have 10-20 wget shell scripts beating the webserver continuously)
Hour after hour, for a week or so.
A few disclaimers:
1) I make sure all the components for a high-capacity server (esp. the chipset & NIC) are on the RedHat compatability list.
2) When I'm buying hardware for a cheapie embedded server, I try to buy hardware that's been on the market for at least 6 months or so.
With this formula, I've had nothing but stellar results!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Who would choose to use a distribution called "Unreliable Linux"?
I live in Brisbane, and the area where Crest is situated is renowned for power supply problems - only the best UPS's will help. I'll bet that the guys who "fixed" the problems with WINDOWS supplied a new UPS with their gear.
So, what you're saying is that the people at your customer's site would rather work 12-16 hour days for an indefinite length of time than spend 10 minutes getting you the information you need to get the problem solved right away? No wonder they're getting yelled at by their managers.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Yep, he sure sounds like someone who would go running back to "beloved Microsoft".
And who in their right minds lets any mission critical server auto-patch itself, regardless of operating system. That's just utter madness!
No, it's efficiency and good systems management.
Of course, what they mean here by "automatic updates" are updates distributed from an internal updates service (WSUS) after being approved, not "automatic updates" from windowsupdate.com.
My other friend (yes, I have two!) put it best I think, when he said "I hope the guy got a major payout from Microsoft, because such a public display of incompetence makes him unemployable.".
The numbers say he's saved his company money and made their systems more reliable. That usually makes you *more* employable, not less - at least with the people who actually do the hiring that don't care about Operating System holy wars, at any rate.
Yes, throw random bodies, rather than someone who has specific experience. I know many things my co-workers don't, and they likewise. When we get a tech support question, it goes to the main list and then whoever is most qualified answers it. Or digs for more info.
I wouldn't put it past RedHat to have some kind of filtering like that for their muckity-muck engineers so that they make sure they send the right guy for the job.
But if you ask for help, someone asks for clarification or a bit more info THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON SITE FOR, it's your fault if you refuse their assistance.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
thats says it all in a nutshell i think. he's a retard.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Is it just me, or does this sound like an ad?
"I fully support Linux but if I had to make the decision again I'd pick Windows. A big reason is the fact Windows was up and running in two hours at all the right patch levels. The installation of SAP took two days on Windows, the installation on Linux Red Hat took two weeks. The total cost of ownership is actually lower in this case than with Linux because of the hidden costs of the support."
I feel like I'm reading a Microsoft brochure. And keep in mind that I *like* Windows as a desktop OS, for the most part.
I'm a *nix (FreeBSD & Solaris preferred, but Linux too) admin, but in this circumstance I would have switched to Windows too. TCO is really more important than ephemeral "but you can fix it yourself" claims. Especially since, if you RTFM, they can't - they can't get support unless they are running a certified operating system. So they can't tweak it, they can't just automate their patches - it's an admin's nightmare! Good on him for switching to the OS that works. Sorry, RedHat.
;)
Right tool for the right job. Most of the time I think Unix is the better tool, but sometimes you don't need a swiss army knife. Sometimes you need a hammer. Windows is a very effective hammer