Help on specs for *nix server? 1

[Tels]

Well, I'm looking for a machine to replace the one I'm currently using as httpd/PostGRES server. (x86 P100 running Linux 2.4.2-2)
Naff I know. Up til now it was an experiment, Now I am thinking of going for a native unix machine to put into production use, providing Linux will run on it. (please forgive any newbie-isms)
What kind of performance/reliability boost would I get from using a *nix machine, and why? Are there major differences between x86 and *nix platform architechture?

I don't want to spend too much, I've already looked at ebay and seen some interesting things, but the specs mean little to me. Processor speeds on some seem to be really low compared to x86 machines for a similar price... what should I expect for £500? any kind of information will be appreciated, even if you think it would cost me more.

Thanks in advance for your wisdom guys/girls Mixed Linux/Win2000 Network Administrator

 

[MikeLacey]

Hi Tels,

If you move to Solaris or AIX or HPUX hardware you will have to learn the version of UNIX as well. Linux is for x86 afaik. Solaris is available for x86, but that's for people migrating the other way really...

Spares and new bits for the proprietary architectures are harder to some by and more expensive the PC parts.

Just come back from a trip to Staples in Loughborough, the office supplier near me. They had a 1ghz 128mb 40hd machine for £499 which would be a *marked* improvement on your P100 I think. (I don't have any connection with Staples, just an example) You can get a big performance improvement, and a guarantee, for £500. I'm buying one to replace my P75 running Linux that is my firewall

Linux is extremely stable and compares well with Solaris for x86 in performance. If you're having stability problems now then you *will* be able to address them and have a stable system.

So -- unless you have a unchangable reason to move away from Linux, I would advise you not to. Mike
________________________________________________________________________________

"Experience is the comb that Nature gives us, after we are bald."

Is that a haiku?
I never could get the hang
of writing those things.

 

[KarveR]

We have a test PC (x86 based) running an AMD 1gig with redhat 7 and mysql and its a whole shedload faster and then some compared to our sco machine of equivalent spec.

UK peeps check out vohkus or insight and you can pic up a god enough 1Ghz+ pc for under 400 quid.

I think the last ones I bought were 1.3Ghz HP Vectras at £319.00 each. ***************************************
Party on, dudes!

 

[KarveR]

not e to slef .. Must clean my keyboars and/or learn to type ***************************************
Party on, dudes!

 

[MikeLacey]

Thank you KarveR Mike
________________________________________________________________________________

"Experience is the comb that Nature gives us, after we are bald."

Is that a haiku?
I never could get the hang
of writing those things.

 

[rycamor]

There is no such thing as a "native" Unix architecture. That was the whole point of Unix from the very beginning. In fact, I believe Unix was the first operating system to be hardware-independent.

Linux has been made to run on everything from a Casio portable computer to IBM mainframes.

However, for most purposes, it's very unlikely that you would need to go beyond a couple of high-end x86 systems anytime soon. If you really need performance, go with dual 2 Ghz machines with 4 GB RAM and SCSI RAID and you will not run out of steam for a long time. (see

http://www.racksaver.com

for some cool x86 performance) If you need to scale up from there, then consider either clustering, or moving to one of the proprietary Unixes, such as Solaris.

Linux performance compares well to the proprietary Unixes for most small-to mid-level systems. It's only when you are truly processing large volumes of information that you need to consider the scaleability of one of those 16-processor Sun cubes, for example.

In my experience, the Linux distribution that uses hardware most efficiently is Slackware, which is much less bloated, and more Unixlike than most other Linux distros.

Or try FreeBSD (

http://www.freebsd.org),

which is a free, open-source operating system running on x86 but is based on the classic BSD Unix. FreeBSD makes even better use of low-end system resources than Linux, especially for such tasks as a webserver. Yahoo.com runs almost exclusively on FreeBSD webservers. Also BSD and Postgres come from the same place (Berkeley), and they run very well together.

The point is, stick with standardized, commodity hardware as long as you can. In the end, if you need to scale to a true enterprise-level system, you can probably keep your x86 servers, but go with a big iron database server, and a cluster of x86 web application servers. -------------------------------------------

"Now, this might cause some discomfort..."
(

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html)

 

[Tels]

All your comments have been really useful. I appreciate them all.
rycamor, I had a feeling *nix was hardware independent, I suppose what I should have asked is which platform is most suited to *nix... (i.e. RISC CPU's????)

I think I will be keeping the x86, but I would like to know more about FreeBSD & Slackware.... are there any disadvantages to these operating systems, compared to RH7.1?
If I was to use them, how easily configurable are they?

Being used to Windoze, I've only just gotten comfortable navigating BASH - as you can imagine a GUI like KDE is really useful to me at this stage. Is it included in distros like FreeBSD, or would I have to compile it myself?

(PS exactly what is the difference (and similarities) between FreeBSD and Linux? can they use the same shells?)

Anyway, Like I said...

Thanks all very much

Tels Mixed Linux/Win2000 Network Administrator

 

[rycamor]

Asking which hardware platform is most suited to *nix is like asking which programming language is best. In general, the differences are simply in physical implementation, (where some are optimized better for certain tasks) not in the logical capabilities of the operating system.

KDE is included on just about all free *nixes. However, in general Slackware and FreeBSD don't provide as many customized graphical widgets as RedHat. Red Hat has been occasionally dubbed "The Microsoft of the Linux world". In that sense, they have provided the most tools for Windows users to migrate to Linux. Mandrake is a close second in this area. But the problem I have with the RedHat/Mandrake approach is that it doesn't really teach you Unix

Traditionally, Unix systems are configured by means of a variety of text configuration files. Each application has its own, unique text file, and they all work differently. You can also set up your own text files to run certain scripts on every reboot. This may sound like a headache, but it has one great benefit over Microsoft's centrally controlled registry: even if any one piece of software goes completely kablooey, the other stuff is unaffected. In Windows, one registry flaw can bring down the whole system. Also, once you learn the Unix configuration system, you can configure your system in ways you could never dream of in the Windows world.

So it pays to learn the Unix stuff, if you want a truly robust server. All of the RedHat gui widgets are simply interfaces to edit the different text configuration files. So, once you learn the configuration files, you do not need the GUI stuff. GUIs are good for other purposes, but in general they should never be constantly running on a server, and they should never be relied on, because if a configuration file gets corrupted, you will need to edit it by hand anyway.

Slackware is as much Linux as any of the other Linux distributions, but it just adheres more closely to a traditional Unix in its directory layout, initialization scripts, etc... It is actually very similar to FreeBSD. Linux is a Unix clone, while FreeBSD is Unix. Its codebase comes directly from the original Unix developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie 30 years ago. This means 30 years of continuous development and bugfixes, while Linux has only been around for 11 years. In other words, FreeBSD is rock-stable. If you browse

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html,

you will notice that FreeBSD, and its commercial sister, BSD/OS, usually have the longest known uptimes of all webservers.

Also, because of they don't need custom graphical confguration tools, Slackware and FreeBSD tend to be a lot less bloated when you install them. Try FreeBSD and you will be amazed at how fast it boots.

FreeBSD and Linux can use the same shells. FreeBSD by default ships with the C shell, which is fairly similar to Bash, but Bash is one of the standard pieces of software available, as are KDE, midnight commander, vi, etc...

Here are some good websites, if you want a start at learning real Unix:

http://www.ugu.com

http://www.introcomp.co.uk/unixadmin.html

http://www.unixreview.com/

http://linux.oreillynet.com/

(Linux-specific)

http://www.onlamp.com/bsd/

(*BSD-specific)

http://www.maximumbsd.com/bsd/

(same) -------------------------------------------

"Now, this might cause some discomfort..."
(

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html)