I have two RH9 servers at work, one just a static HTML/PHP Apache server. The other one is running Apache Tomcat for our servlet-based e-commerce site. Since we just actually launched the e-com site today.. I am now getting a idea of the load we will see and will be buying three new Dell PowerEdge 2xXeon boxes and using Tomcat 5's built-in clustering to cluster them.
That being said.. this is a huge pain in my ass. I am overworked as it is, and this just doesn't help. I use redhat because it's what I've used since 5 was released. My home server is running Postfix/Apache/Spamassasin and RH9. So I'm screwed all around, pretty mcuh.
The static/PHP Apache server is going to get moved to a different OS here soon. I'm probably going to go with SuSE as it's the only other Linux distro I really am comfortable with, and since Novell bought them and we run NetWare on our primary file/application server cluster..
Also, RHEL isn't an option because I told my boss the reason for going to RH was to save money. I'm not going to go back and ask him to shell out the cash for four copies of RHEL WS.
Anyway.. that's me. I'm miffed, but I'll get over it.;)
Please tell me that the "Ease of installation" was a joke.
Hell, installing NetWare 5 in a multi-server environment is easier than installing Debian.
But I love the Debian concept. I love everything about it beyond the installer.
Then again, I'm the freak who loves the OpenBSD installer:) (I can start a net install in roughly 2 minutes;))
I remember when people griped about the price of Mac OS X 10.2/Jaguar. I thought it was a bargain.
That being said, this isn't that bad when you consider that I think they are gearing it to business. What would five copies of XP Pro cost? Exactly.
Hell, I'm a sysadmin, and I hate to say it but 90% of the workstations my end users use are running 98 SE. With the exception of a couple 2000 boxes, fourteen new ThinkPads running XP, one XP desktop, and my desktop that is running RedHat 9. I need, desperately, to upgrade these machines.. but.. I found that buying new Dells with XP already on them is going to be more cost-effective than just buying XP.
That being said, I would be just downright tickled if I could get rid of the several programs we have that require Windows and rid the company of the Micorosft virus.
Anyway, when you think of it that way, it makes sense. Cost per user of about $120 for the 5-user pack is pretty dammn cheap.
I work for a large Medical Distributor, and was giving a free reign to choose what OS I wanted to put on our new webserver(s). After much searching I decided on RedHat 8, mainly because I know Redhat inside and out, and it was the newest RH at the time, and I wanted to try it:).
I've been using it in a production environment for about 10 months now, and am beyond pleased. It's on our primary webserver, a Xeon running Apache 2, PHP, and Tomcat and our identical backup box. Some minor compilation issues with GCC at the beginning, but a couple of months after that a update fixed it.
But yeah, I don't see any need for RHEL. It's a great concept, but unless you need the support, or cluster management I don't see why you would want to do it.
Then again, thanks to my boss and a former employee our mail/file server is a NetWare 6 box:P
Anyway, go with RH7.3, 8, or 9.
Slashdot Mirror
..and I feel fine.
Seriously, old fat women that go to Wal-Mart and fall on the wet floor have made their way to IT.
Just they are now heads of companies, heads that somehow rocketed up the company's ass so far that they cannot see reality.
*sigh*
STEEEEMPY, YOU EEEDIOT
Me. :)
;)
I have two RH9 servers at work, one just a static HTML/PHP Apache server. The other one is running Apache Tomcat for our servlet-based e-commerce site. Since we just actually launched the e-com site today.. I am now getting a idea of the load we will see and will be buying three new Dell PowerEdge 2xXeon boxes and using Tomcat 5's built-in clustering to cluster them.
That being said.. this is a huge pain in my ass. I am overworked as it is, and this just doesn't help. I use redhat because it's what I've used since 5 was released. My home server is running Postfix/Apache/Spamassasin and RH9. So I'm screwed all around, pretty mcuh.
The static/PHP Apache server is going to get moved to a different OS here soon. I'm probably going to go with SuSE as it's the only other Linux distro I really am comfortable with, and since Novell bought them and we run NetWare on our primary file/application server cluster..
Also, RHEL isn't an option because I told my boss the reason for going to RH was to save money. I'm not going to go back and ask him to shell out the cash for four copies of RHEL WS.
Anyway.. that's me. I'm miffed, but I'll get over it.
Please tell me that the "Ease of installation" was a joke. Hell, installing NetWare 5 in a multi-server environment is easier than installing Debian. But I love the Debian concept. I love everything about it beyond the installer. Then again, I'm the freak who loves the OpenBSD installer :) (I can start a net install in roughly 2 minutes ;))
I remember when people griped about the price of Mac OS X 10.2/Jaguar. I thought it was a bargain. That being said, this isn't that bad when you consider that I think they are gearing it to business. What would five copies of XP Pro cost? Exactly. Hell, I'm a sysadmin, and I hate to say it but 90% of the workstations my end users use are running 98 SE. With the exception of a couple 2000 boxes, fourteen new ThinkPads running XP, one XP desktop, and my desktop that is running RedHat 9. I need, desperately, to upgrade these machines.. but.. I found that buying new Dells with XP already on them is going to be more cost-effective than just buying XP. That being said, I would be just downright tickled if I could get rid of the several programs we have that require Windows and rid the company of the Micorosft virus. Anyway, when you think of it that way, it makes sense. Cost per user of about $120 for the 5-user pack is pretty dammn cheap.
I work for a large Medical Distributor, and was giving a free reign to choose what OS I wanted to put on our new webserver(s). After much searching I decided on RedHat 8, mainly because I know Redhat inside and out, and it was the newest RH at the time, and I wanted to try it :).
I've been using it in a production environment for about 10 months now, and am beyond pleased. It's on our primary webserver, a Xeon running Apache 2, PHP, and Tomcat and our identical backup box. Some minor compilation issues with GCC at the beginning, but a couple of months after that a update fixed it.
But yeah, I don't see any need for RHEL. It's a great concept, but unless you need the support, or cluster management I don't see why you would want to do it.
Then again, thanks to my boss and a former employee our mail/file server is a NetWare 6 box :P
Anyway, go with RH7.3, 8, or 9.