A bit lost Windows or Linux? 1

[JRBeltman]

Hi All,
I am a bit lost (also in which forum to place this).

The situation is simple,
at work we need to change to a complete new server system, because the current one is falling apart (even the doors fall of the servers!)

So where to go?
I am wondering: Linux or Windows?
What do I need?
1. MS SQL servers for the database (no option here).
2. Mail, internet and everything that comes with that)
3. File/Print.
4. A backup solution that can be restored easily quickly and anywhere with any kind of equipment.
5. Email must be worldwide accessible.
6. Remote working (thin clients orso).
7. Easy management and central.
8. Everything else that I can't remember at present.

So what can do this?
I am familiar with Windows and feel safe going for that solution. However I have read about Linux and am keen to get into it (doing my certification course now). But am scared and uneasy that I will not be able to manage it and/or that it will not be what I expect it to be.

I have had two proposals writen, one for Linux and one for windows. The latter looks a lot better, but those people have been in the business for a long time whilst the others have like 5 years and are a small company.

Where to go?
Help???


JR
As a wise man once said: To build the house you need the stone.
Back to the Basics!

 

[RiverGuy]

For #1, you have to have Windows. Are you talking about multiple servers, or just one?

 

[JRBeltman]

Oh I have about 9 of those server machines standing around.
And I want to make the whole thing fail save... maybe like using replication or load balancing/clustering?

JR
As a wise man once said: To build the house you need the stone.
Back to the Basics!

 

[Zech]

Since you have more than one server, I suggest that you should mix them up. Some servers should run Windows while others run Linux.

The objective is to let you test-drive Linux and whether Linux offers better solutions for your company. If later you find it to be too troublesome using Linux, at least you still have the Windows servers to run the vital services for your company. Also, you can always convert more servers into either Linux or Windows later on.

In addition, you should also consider the corporate support for each OS. If you want to use Linux, you might want to use IBM instead of small companies. I have never administered Linux on a large network before, but based on my experience as a programmer, the support for Linux (the solutions, the patches, etc.) tends to be scattered all over the internet. If you know where to look, it's fine. The problems come if the admin doesn't know where to look for the support and patches. That's why I would recommend you getting the support of a reliable company for Linux. At least, they could put all the solutions together in one place for you. They also save you time in testing the patches for the particular Linux flavour that you are using.

 

[jrbarnett]

With reference to number 4, generally you are not going to be able to restore a backup made on one type of media with a different type of drive.
You are going to have to think about capacity, speed, likely amount of data needed to be backed up, and make sure that you get at least two identical drives in different servers, so you can restore to a different server if one drive goes belly up.
You could consider one of the network backup via the internet options as well, but would need a high speed connection (presumably you would have if providing webmail facilities for staff) but the actual cost would depend on quantity of data.

John

 

[JRBeltman]

Maybe less well know is backup to a removable drive such a IDE Raid or even USB. Data can be replicated over the IDE/USB drive and such a device fits any other PC.

I have been looking into this and sales people say this is a most fantastic solution, but they always do.

Anyone any thoughts about this?

JR
As a wise man once said: To build the house you need the stone.
Back to the Basics!

 

[jrbarnett]

No backup is worth its salt unless you can remove it from the building in which the servers are located, because if the backup media located close to the servers, it is not likely to cope with fire, flood, vandalism/theft etc.
IDE RAID devices are a possibility as a cheaper alternative to SCSI RAID controllers, but I would buy a proper hardware controller rather than the low end ones that come integrated on motherboards now because they tend to be oriented towards more performance enhancement for disk intensive tasks than data availability/recovery.

USB devices? Possibility, but you are going to need a reasonable storage requirement, and more than one disk to so you don't have a full and differential backups on the same disk, for example. Thus, cost could be the downside of this approach.

John

 

[JRBeltman]

I only have about 120 GB to backup and the USB devices are going down in price, but are indeed still expensive.

Obviously the backup media goes off site. The idea with IDE RAID is to have mirrored disks and remove one of them after backup and put back another. So it can be taken off site.

I find the problem with tape backup that you usually need the software and specific hardware to restore.

JR
As a wise man once said: To build the house you need the stone.
Back to the Basics!

 

[jmd0252]

Mixing up the servers is a great idea, gets you the best of both worlds. However if you are talking backup. I think one item we all miss in the MIS field is. We need to prepared for loss of a structure. If we have drives "raided", and "backed up" to some sort of mass storage device, that can be taken off site. We feel secure. But what happens of we loose the computer room? What happens if we loose the building? How do we continue to do business when that happens. I do believe with all the intergrations we have with emails, and servers, that becomes the real issue. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[gbaughma]

The idea with IDE RAID is to have mirrored disks and remove one of them after backup and put back another. So it can be taken off site.

Scary.

They make a nice little Firewire / USB external hard drive... I use it for a lot of things (transferring files, backups, etc. etc.) I would go with that before yanking IDE drives out. To my knowledge, you can't hot-swap IDE drives like that, even mirror raided, anyway. Better to use GHOST or some other system to back up. Or tape.

As far as everything you need to do (AND THIS IS IMHO ONLY!), I would do the following:

1. MS SQL - Windows Server 2003.
2. E-mail - Option 1 - Microsoft Exchange
Option 2 - Linux
Option 1 if you wish to have shared calendars, group scheduling, etc. Option 2 if you're looking for a good, inexpensive E-mail system.
3. Web Server - Once again depends on what you want to do
o ASP - Windows IIS
o PHP / Perl - Linux

For thin client, you'll want to do either Windows 2003 with the Client Access bit...

Overall, after re-reading your post while typing this one, a Microsoft solution sounds more rounded for what you need to do. Similar to what I have at work now:

o An Active Directory Controller
o An Exchange Server
o A file / Printer server
o A RAS / Anti-Virus server

... all running Windows 2000.


Just my $.02

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify it's owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[JRBeltman]

Thanks all,
I have had big trouble deciding and am still not entirely sure.

Only the linux consultants can offer me what I want so far, but MS seems to do more of what we need and our database people (core in the company) work only with MS.

The RAID IDE thing I find scary too! USB/Firewire was something I was leaning towards.

Of course one backup device is not good enough. No I need more so at least one is far away in case of a metiorite hitting the server room.

Now comes the part where I think:
I want to be able to just unplug a server at any given time, and the network not to lose functionality.

I know that I can use replication with MS SQL (very good stuff!). This way I can use 2 servers for MS SQL and take one out of action any given time without users loosing connection.

But how about file services? Load balancing?
And print server?
Exchange having any clever options?

I did not want a SAN, because they are expensive and represent one point of failure. However I have thought about using Linux (SAMBA) for file and print and replicate between the two linux servers. Maybe I can also use the 'less' strong servers for that and still have great performance?

Obviously Active D for all admin stuff.

Please let me know your thoughts.

JR
As a wise man once said: To build the house you need the stone.
Back to the Basics!

 

[MDXer]

A mixed enviroment offers the best of both worlds. That being said your corporate production enviroment is not the place to learn new technologies. The best answer is to do what you are currently most confident in doing. Allocate a few servers servers for UNIX or LINUX that are not mission critical and therefore if something happens your company doesn't really feel an impact.

You should look at your current enviroment and see what would be involved to migrate out of that enviroment. Items to consider are

Web Site:
Is your site currently using ASP pages. If so then migrating to apache or some other Web server would require that the site be rewritten in jsp or php. Many companies may not be willing to eat the cost of rewritten their website.

Email:
Are you currently using Exchange or some other Email system. If your currently on Exchange what is the cost of migrating to another Email system.

Backup:
Get away from usb backup devices. Look into a DLT solution a small DLT Jukebox or a NAS with an LTO. This will allow you to have an enterprise backup strategy in place with backup rotations.

Do what is best and most cost effective for your company. Don't measure cost just in $$ remember migration requires time and in business that is money.

Meeting with the decision makers and power players in your company would be a good step to make sure that you meet their needs. If your building a new enviroment why not make sure that the companies needs are met.

Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!
- Daffy Duck

 

[chiph]

To my knowledge, you can't hot-swap IDE drives like that, even mirror raided, anyway.

You can with SATA drives. See:

http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/su...=AAR-2410SA_ENCL&cat=/Product/AAR-2410SA_ENCL

It's even supported under SuSE, RedHat, SCO, and Caldera.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[chiph]

Now comes the part where I think:
I want to be able to just unplug a server at any given time, and the network not to lose functionality.

That would be a high-availability solution, and for that you want clustering.

Be prepared to spend big money for a Microsoft solution. For each cluster you need:
A. Two identical servers
B. Shared RAID disk array (must be SCSI or Fibre channel)
C. Windows Advanced Server (big bucks)

This will give you redundant file + print services. If you want redundant Exchange, you need the high-end license. If you want redundant MS SQL Server, you need the "Advanced" version.

Once you get into the "Advanced" licenses for all this, you'll find it's often priced per-CPU. So you have a pair of dual-CPU servers, that's 4 licenses to buy.

At this point, Linux starts to look attractive. But to do clustering in Linus needs highly trained staff (same in MS world, but they're not as expensive as Linux people). So I would look at your overall costs, not just hardware + software costs.

Chip H.

____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[MDXer]

Once you get into the "Advanced" licenses for all this, you'll find it's often priced per-CPU. So you have a pair of dual-CPU servers, that's 4 licenses to buy.

Not for all products. Some if not most the products that are designed to be clustered (active/passive), if set up in a cluster enviroment you only pay for the number of licenses in the active cluster.


Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!
- Daffy Duck

 

[JRBeltman]

Hi all,
over the past week reading all your responses and meanwhile taking my certification course on Linux (working hard on this!!) I have come closer to a decision.

For my 'unplug at any time' approach I am thinking about:
2x MS SQL server with SQL replication (no SAN required)
2x Linux for file and print (using Linux replication, no SAN)
2x Exchange server for the email. (not entirely sure about replication here).
?x Backup server to which all servers replicate (somehow) and having either USB or SATA disks so they can be taken off site.

Q:
Does exchange have a replication service such as MS SQL?
Have I forgotten anything?
What would be the best for Thin clients?
I am planning to use Active D to manage all users and computers. My understanding is that this needs a minimum of 3 Windows servers (we have 4 so 4 will have it installed).
And what to do for Internet Access and firewall? In would be thinking about linux for this and install it on the Linux machines.

We have a charity status, so licencing comes cheap!
Any comments?

Many thanks for all!

JR
As a wise man once said: To build the house you need the stone.
Back to the Basics!

 

[Agentstarks]

?x Backup server to which all servers replicate (somehow) and having either USB or SATA disks so they can be taken off site."


Tape has been the standard for the past 20+ years. I wouldn't mess with a proven thing. You can pick up a new SDLT or LTO tape drive for 2 -5 grand. You could even get the new 600gig SDLT tape drive and back up all your servers on one tape, make a copy of that and send it offsite once a week or whatever. I don't like trusting hard drives too much when they come with a one year manufacturer warranty.

 

[Albion]

This is a tough decision to make...

Pros of Windows

1: Ease of use. Although MS certs aren't all that easy, someone with little to no experience can run a windows server as long as nothing goes wrong with it.
2: Popularity. Says it all, the vast majority of companies and software manufacturers use and develop on Windows. But because of this there is a large following of anti-Windows people, many of which will do what they can to make it's life miserable. I.E. Code Red Worm.

Cons

1: Cost. Obviously if you install Microsoft server software you are going to be dealing with major costs depending on your user base. Not only do you need a license for each piece of Microsoft software you run, but you will need CALs for each user that connects to that software. Be careful of that OEM software, you must physically have every CoA (Certificate of Authenticity) in possesion for them to be legal.
2: Licensing. This is my biggest gripe with Microsoft. They have no problems changing their licensing programs on you every five seconds. I have software that is still under standard and retail licensing, I have stuff that on Upgrade Advantage, and I have stuff that's on software assurance. The way they word it you think your getting a deal with software assurance but if you look at the costs over a three year period you are paying for the software 3 times on the odd chance that they come out with a new version in that time. And if they do they'd have to come out with 4 new version in that three year period for it to be a savings. For 3 servers and 45 workstations my total Software Assurance bill was around $22,000 over three years. At least with other companies I deal with (EDS, UGS, Mastercam) when I pay their maintenance I am guaranteed a new version every year, with Microsoft this is not true.

Pros of Linux

1: Obviously it's price. Contrary to popular belief you do not have to BUY a RedHat package. You can download the software along with umteen million other distros out there and install them on just about any machine you can get your hands on.
2: Resource Light. I can take the latest version of RedHat and install it on a Pentium II with 256meg of RAM and have no problems. Let's see you do that with Windows 2k3.
3: Lack of Popularity. I don't mean it's not popular, but as in #2 above with popularity comes the hackers. Although server software like Apache is no less a security risk then IIS; IIS is more attractive to hackers simply because it's from Bill Gates of Borg.

Cons

1: Linux or any Unix is not an easy NOS to administer. It takes someone with a little more experience and knowledge then the tokin secretary to run it.
2: Lack of software support. Although I do see the server side picking up a little speed, Linux just does not have the software selection available to it that Windows does. In windows I can hit the net and find 10 different packages of any software to accomplish the task I have, but with Linux it's hit or miss and when you do find it you have to be knowledgable enough to know how to build a package from source code and fix compile problems, or find a binary that matches your kernel.
3: Tech Support. Unless you purchase a support package, you are on your own when it comes to getting help. But then again, how many times in the last 5 years have you called Microsoft for Tech support? There are enough resources on the internet (IRC, Usenet, Tek-Tips, expertXchange, eventID.net, etc...) for computer people to use that make Tech Support unnecessary.
4: Licensing. Although this isn't huge deal in my opinion, to some non-computer types it may be. Right now SCO is suing IBM as you know for licensing rights to Linux. Who knows where this is going to go but it may be a concern to your CEO/President. Make sure you do your research on this topic and clearly cover it so it doesn't backlash on you incase the worst does happen.

As for your list

1. MS SQL servers for the database (no option here).

Windows - MS SQL
Linux - MySQL (perfectly acceptable replacement for MSQL)

2. Mail, internet and everything that comes with that)

Windows - Exchange (If you need the extra hubbub I.E. global contacts, folders, calendar
Linux - Sendmail with pop-3 on the client.

3. File/Print.

Windows - Standard
Linux - Samba/SMB (Will make your Linux box emulate a Windows domain controller. Not sure if they've gotten AD into it yet...)

4. A backup solution that can be restored easily quickly and anywhere with any kind of equipment.

Windows - Veritas (Only because I use it but there are others)
Linux - Write a Perl script and use Tar. Or purchase one of the many backup packages for UNIX.

5. Email must be worldwide accessible.

Windows - Outlook Web client.
Linux - There are a ton of generic web mail servers that will work with sendmail.

6. Remote working (thin clients orso).

Windows - Terminal Server, Citrix
Linux - LTSP (Linux Terminal Server Project), or something like VNC

7. Easy management and central.

There are a ton of centralized management solution for Windows, Linux and both.

8. Everything else that I can't remember at present.

When choosing your NOS, get the right NOS for the job. Don't go all Linux or all Windows. Maybe you want the domain to be controlled by Windows 2k3, but you want Linux to handle all your routing, gateway, internet stuff. Personally I like BIND DDNS much better then Microsoft DDNS for Active Directory, so I use Linux on my internal DNS servers, but that's a matter of opinion.

Good Luck

-Al

 

[Andreh]

For thin client access..

The best is Citrix (Presentation Server 3.0 is the latest at the moment).

It is an excellent product and very solid. You will spend your money well having specialised consultants config this though. You will save money down the track though due to it's stability.

depending on how many clients you would like to access, aim for about 30 users per server.

Licensing is rather unique. You will need to but 1 copy of the software and a concurrent client access license for the each user. This only limits the number of users at any one time in your environment. The real good thing that Citrix offer in licensing is that you can install it on any number of servers (to make up a farm), as long as you have a valid software license and client access licenses. Remember, this requires Microsoft so you will need to purchase all required licenses from that point of view.

You need a Windows (2000 or 2003) Terminal Server (or more) to install it on, a Domain Controller to allow user authentication and it would be a good idea to have a MS SQL server around to store the Citrix datastore.

Citrix usually means a MS path though.

Goodluck

"Assumption is the mother of all f#%kups!

 

[jwenting]

mySQL is certainly NOT a good replacement for MS SQL. There may be only 1 letter difference in the name but that does not mean they're similar products.
When will the anti-Microsoft zealots get over it?
mySQL is nice for small things like a personal website or an anti-Microsoft site like slashdot, for serious business applications it's just not enough.
It's NOT a full featured RDBMS, lacks a lot of what's needed.
Plus if you'd read the rest of the thread you'd noticed that MSSQL Server is a corporate standard and a hard requirement!

Exchange: much the same story. Sendmail is powerful but it's hell to set up and administer without your machine becoming the preferred host for every spammer and virus author in the world.

We use Facetwin at work to provide a lot of Unix services, it works well:

http://www.facetwin.com/