Red Hat options

[torledo]

Hi All

We're looking into implementing redhat linux at our company. Initially we'd be looking at having Redhat Enterprise servers fulfilling particular internet functions i.e mail, web/intranet, DNS etc. but later we'd like to experiment with Redhat linux as both client and server on our LAN. With Redhat server(s) serving LDAP, file sharing functions, http proxy and redhat WS or redhat desktop as the user machines running popular opensource programs and the mozilla browser (possibly with a view to replacement of M$ and IE6 hell in part of our small org with a redhat client/server setup).
We've been looking at the various options within our price range i.e RHN desktop with 10 client and management module, Redhat ES servers with WS desktops. My question is what are adv/disadv of t options available. For instance we want to have a number of servers, but we also want a number of desktops that we can image and manage centrally and update regularly - is it better to have a RHN proxy or for each client to update directly i.e hosted method. To me the RHN has a wealth of options but at the same time restrictions depending on your budget. For instance is it worth forking out the extra for the mgmt/prov modules if centralised management and regular updates can be achieved *free* but with a little more work ? My boss loves the idea of redhat on the desktop serving our users - and i love the idea of redhat servers providing LAN and internet functions...(and easy mnagement of desktops) these ideals arenn't incompatible are they?

Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated

 

[thedaver]

Have you evaluated why you are buying the RedHat Enterprise fee-based distributions versus those that are free, even from Redhat?

Other than module management I didn't see anything in your description that would have swayed me, personally, that you've justified the expense of buying into RedHat's services program. I don't have any experience, good or bad, with RedHat Enterprise or their services approach, but I don't see significant value in my context to justify the expense.

For instance, Fedora from RedHat is updated fairly often, regarded as stable and should have the services you need. There's also a plethora of other distributions - fee-based and otherwise. Suse, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, etc.

I consult on these kinds of decisions for a living and I would strongly urge you to rationalize your buying decision based upon your requirements, not what RedHat offers.

For instance, almost every distro vendor provides a package management solution to keep the software up to date. You could readily build your own local package distribution/sharing server on your network and only require that server to breach the firewall to obtain packages. From there you'd "teach" your linux servers and desktops to run cron jobs to look for new packages and apply them automagically. All of this can potentially be done without spending a dime of licensing fees. You should, however, factor back in the cost of building a bit of this yourself to be fair to the analysis....

I'm sure some other, far smarter, associates here can suggest solutions. My point is that you should be very deliberate in buying something when its already free.






Hosting Solutions for Home or Business.

http://www.surfinbox.com/hosting/

 

[lgarner]

RH sells a "satellite server" which would receive all updates and allow you to download them from that server, sort of like SUS. For 10 desktops and a few servers it might not be worthwhile.

My company has standardized on RHEL3, but we only have about a dozen servers and no desktops involved. I just have them download from RH during our regular maintenance window, unless something *really* critical is released.

I also use CentOS for a couple of non-critical servers (and personally). It's a simple matter to set up a local mirror server for updates.

 

[torledo]

thedaver,

i completely agree with everything you've said. I'm from a M$ background and while that doesn't make much sense to most when there is so much equiv. stuff for free, I don't like to spend money on a M$ product or 3rd party app for something that can be done with a script or with a simple to use built-in tool when i'm working in the M$ world...but as when working on M$ systems i do have to factor in the time and effort put into building systems, and particularly as i'm new to linux there is a certain amount of trepadation - and while i don't need a M$ wizard to help me complete every task and can get up to speed with most things quite quickly i need something thats intuiative, and yes, is "packaged" well with some sort of uniformity. Hence t commercial Redhat offerings. So yes if i'm honest i am factoring in setup time to build the systems you suggest, aswell as to a certain degree redhat support and t mgmt modules. Although the huge linux internet community and a little trial and error would be a good enough substitute - but you make valid and correct points regarding the free distros and fedora aswell.

lgarner,

out of interest what versions of RHEL ar you using on your servers i.e ES or AS, how do you automate the mgmt of the servers, and what decision would u make if required to implement linux on the desktop ?

 

[Castor66]

My 2 cents!

We use RHEL3 for one of our solutions in a production environment. We have bought into the Redhat program and I've received little benefit from it. Initially I thought that the benefit would come from regular updates but I've rarely had to use them. Also, since I installed the server a package at a time in the locations that I wanted them to go I end up doing manual updates anyway.

As for the desktops, that is a difficult decision. You will find that some websites won't be available to you using Firefox or Mozilla which may be a good or bad thing! The other downside is that a lot of people are very used to Windows on the Desktop and will find the KDE or GNOME interface a bit of shock. And wait till they start on OpenOffice.Org!

I would roll out the servers first and see how you would get on. Use them in parallel with your Windoze ones first so you don't turn something off only to find that you needed it. Definitely look to have Linux as your bridgehead server for mail, especially to run SpamAssassin et al. Also, look to have a Samba server available as well. These are low-impact services and will help you get the feel of the products before you go down the heavy duty desktop route.

 

[lgarner]

We have both ES & AS, but will not be renewing the AS. Our application developer only specifies ES, so that's what we will be truly standardized on. I use up2date for the package management and just exclude the ones that shouldn't be updated due to compatibility. I haven't looked into the satellite server yet, probably for only 12 servers or so it isn't worthwhile.

I'm not considering Linux for the desktop, but if I was I'd look at either Suse or Redhat. Both have enterprise server/workstation setups. Suse uses Red Carpet from Ximian, I think, and it looks slick.