I'm in a similar position - arguing to migrate Redhat to Debian, in a smaller environment with no current support contract with Redhat anyway.
Looks like you need to do more homework on what is, isn't supported by IBM, but without support for the DB2 client I'd be inclined not to go Debian here as it sounds fairly crucial. If it were just monitoring software, or something less critical that went from supported to unsupported...
Never mind the Perl, my experience is Debian is just way less buggy than Redhat, and the packaging system is setting the level that Redhat (and everyone else) are chasing. Ironic given that in nearly every case the Debian software was behind Redhat in releases, so the "bugs" were introduced in the packaging for Redhat in most cases.
I'm thinking what is needed is more commercial providers of Debian based products.
But I note the DELL server I got with SCSI disks with SCSI RAID - awful support from DELL/Redhat, needed to patch the shipped kernel to even approach reasonable performance you might expect from this hardware.
Cheapest and tackiest SATA RAID presents a SCSI interface, and just works, and there is even a Debian boot disk to get you running out there on the net somewhere.
The lesson is that hardware is only as good as the driver, and that the RAID drivers aren't all sweetness and light yet either in the GNU/Linux world.
Having compared performance and cost figures I have no issue with using SATA. In many cases the disks are physically identical below the controller level anyway, the SATA version is just cheaper because of volumes sold.
I can get SATA disks retail for a fraction of the prices you claim to be paying.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in a similar position - arguing to migrate Redhat to Debian, in a smaller environment with no current support contract with Redhat anyway.
Looks like you need to do more homework on what is, isn't supported by IBM, but without support for the DB2 client I'd be inclined not to go Debian here as it sounds fairly crucial. If it were just monitoring software, or something less critical that went from supported to unsupported...
Never mind the Perl, my experience is Debian is just way less buggy than Redhat, and the packaging system is setting the level that Redhat (and everyone else) are chasing. Ironic given that in nearly every case the Debian software was behind Redhat in releases, so the "bugs" were introduced in the packaging for Redhat in most cases.
I'm thinking what is needed is more commercial providers of Debian based products.
The SATA v SCSI debate is way old.
But I note the DELL server I got with SCSI disks with SCSI RAID - awful support from DELL/Redhat, needed to patch the shipped kernel to even approach reasonable performance you might expect from this hardware.
Cheapest and tackiest SATA RAID presents a SCSI interface, and just works, and there is even a Debian boot disk to get you running out there on the net somewhere.
The lesson is that hardware is only as good as the driver, and that the RAID drivers aren't all sweetness and light yet either in the GNU/Linux world.
Having compared performance and cost figures I have no issue with using SATA. In many cases the disks are physically identical below the controller level anyway, the SATA version is just cheaper because of volumes sold.
I can get SATA disks retail for a fraction of the prices you claim to be paying.
Remember what the I in RAID stands for?