Large Scale Management - Linux vs Solaris? 113
A not-so anonymous, Anonymous Coward asks: "I work for a college that offers undergraduate computer science classes, and the school would like to add a new lab with about a hundred computers for students to use, for various class projects. After some non-trivial effort, we convinced the school to set up a Unix lab rather than a Windows one. However, we can't decide whether to go for Solaris or Linux. Regardless of the cost of hardware, I couldn't get agreed with my colleagues about the amount of efforts required to manage a hundred of Linux PCs vs. a hundred Sparc boxes. I believe that there are many Slashdot readers are actual managers for labs like this if not in large scales. What are your experiences of managing Linux PCs versus traditional Solaris boxes?"
"My detailed questions are:
1. Compared between these two different systems, how easy to maintain the software for all these machines (including re-installation, patching, and updating)? What software do you use to make these management jobs easier?
2. Are there any fundamental differences between managing a large group of linux PCs and managing a large group of Solaris boxes?"
Go with Linux (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Go with Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go with Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Hacker != cracker
What you are talking about requires malicious intent. Are you saying that Linux was created out of spite?
Hacker means programmer. Just because the knowledge to create includes the knowledge to destroy does not mean that those who create necessarily destroy. Malicious intent is independent of computer knowldege.
Re:Go with Linux (Score:2)
Re:Go with Linux (Score:2)
Re:Go with Linux (Score:2)
Re:Go with Linux (Score:5, Informative)
As for which operating system to use, it really doesn't matter, but why pay for licenses if you don't need to? If the PHB's don't like Linux, use Solaris, but otherwise there's no reason to use a commercial Unix. If you feel that you need to, put Solaris on the main server, with Linux clients, but realise that this may limit you on caching filesystem choice. As for what to install, use GDM/KDM for logins, install both Gnome and KDE, and Evolution, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, and whatever other apps (oregano/spice, verilog, anjuta, jdk, etc...) you need, and you should be set. Set links on the shared
Re:Go with Linux (Score:1)
Let them boot into Solaris x86, various linux and bsd variants, etc.
Then just worry about maintaining one central set of boot images.
At least at my school (Score:1)
UMich experience + radmind (Score:5, Informative)
As far as how we manage our clusters, the answer is the same for Solaris, Linux, and for the matter Mac OS X: radmind [radmind.org]. Check it out. It integrates tripwire and filesystem management. We use it for installation, patching, and updating.
:w
MSU has done both (Score:3, Interesting)
Hint hint to all the budding Linux advocates who have no experience managing labs of any machines, let alone these two specifically... speculation isn't really useful and this is a really specific use case. With computer science users you have to assume both "knowlegable" idiots, and some quite knowlegable malicious attacks.
For a specific latter of the former, we'd do OS projects that involved using the operating system support for semaphores. In Solaris (at the time we were doing this, I don't know about now), there were a very specific number of semaphores that could exist, and since certain parts of the operating system also used them, a single poorly-written program involving semaphores could easily consume them all. "Knowlegable idiots." (I didn't actually do this, but only because I caught my error while I was compiling it... if I'd run the resulting executable I'm about 80% certain I too would have DOS'ed the machine... definately a "do it early" assignment! This class, IIRC, was eventually allocated the aforementioned Linux lab because they kept hosing all the other class's homeworks, which were typically all due at midnight on various Mondays.)
As for the latter, I'm sure you are all aware of the number of security vulnerabilities in things that involve having console access or other otherwise "legitimate" access to the system.
Re:MSU has done both (Score:2)
When it comes to easy of re-install, both have solid paths: jumpstart for solaris and kickstart for linux. 'boot net' from the ok prompt on a solaris box, or have a special floppy that does th
Re:MSU has done both (Score:2)
Shouldn't even need that. Any remotely modern machine should be able to PXE boot, at which state the scenario is the same as "boot net". We do this to automatically install our FreeBSD and Redhat machines.
Other than installation and patching... (Score:5, Informative)
...Linux largely wins. The Solaris kernel is much more mature than Linux (instantly earning me a boatload of kneejerk flames on slashdot), but their userspace tools are crap. The desktops shipped with Solaris are ugly and awkward to use, and getting KDE or Gnome to build and run properly can be an exercise in frustration if you're not familiar with Sun's way of doing things.
On the flip side, installing a hundred Solaris boxes is trivial using their JumpStart programs. A new client system RARPs an IP address from the server, downloads a small kernel from the server, NFS mounts a copy of the installation packages from the server, and does a hands-free install. It's extremely flexible and has been ion production use for years. For Linux you're stuck with walking around with CDs, or using some kludge from sourceforge, or a less-well-tested solution like whatever redhat uses.
Along the same lines, Sun's patching utility is designed with remote-boot or diskless clients in mind. You apply the patch once to the directory tree being used, and you're done. Something similar can be done with diskful clients. Linux binary packages mostly assume that the machine is on its own, so each box will want to download from a remote site and store a local copy, leading to atrocious workarounds like an NFS-shared /var/cache.
Honestly, it doesn't make much difference. You'll be writing wrapper scripts and custom solutions either way. The difference will be in other factors, like cost of hardware or price of support or political games with the rest of the organization. Having managed groups of both kinds of systems in a production environment for years, I would probably recommend Linux to someone who is asking for recommendations. Not because it's inherently superior, but because you seem more comfortable with it.
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:1)
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:3, Funny)
100% of grade
Write a replacement
Due: Before you shoot yourself
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/l i nux/RHL-9-Ma nual/custom-guide/ch-kickstart2.html)
Only thing with Linux is that you have the problem of the boot floppy, which you don't have with Sun Sparc or other systems that have the concept o
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:5, Informative)
Cron apt updates installed packages on the schedule you specify. apt-proxy sits between you and the net and keeps a local mirror of the packages requested, so 100 requests = 1 outside request. Plus you can add your own custom packages to it so that your machines are configured properly. Upgrades? Well by hand it's
apt-get -y dist-upgrade. The stable branch is just that, and the testing branch is really production ready for most definitions of production. Please remember red hat != linux, it is just a distribution with bad package management; but not anywhere near as bad as Solaris package management.
Why is Solaris worse?
1. Solaris does not do reverse dependency checks beyond the parent level.
2. There is no tool to verify that all the proper packages are installed prior to installing a new one.
3. Sun knows this and their help desk acknowledges that it is a known issue. They also indicate that there is not plan at this time to fix the problem.
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
Seconded, with reservations. We have r
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
I recently set up a classroom/student lab cluster of 10 systems using debian stable and i've found it relativly easy to support. I'm aware that this is only a tenth of size of the cluster being discussed but my guess would be that it scales.
For setting up this cluster I first built a custom woody build on a unit of the standardized hardware we were going to use - standard woody, plus updated X, KDE, multimedia, research/science specific custom local packages,
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
Current updates of Solaris 9 come with Sun-supported GNOME out of the box.
The Solaris Freeware [sun.com] (sic) Companion CD [sun.com] which comes in the media kit has been shipping with KDE for serveral years now.
Updates are produced on a 3-month cycle to coincide with the latest update of Solaris.
Don't forget, Solaris runs on
Re:Other than installation and patching... (Score:2)
Someone already pointed this out but not only that Red Hat has kickstart install as an option here - I must add that kickstart actually kicks ass. On a decent network, even more so - install is considerably faster than from a CD.
Apart from that, Red Hat may very well be a system of your choice for this lab - both server and desktop are good products, you can
Forgot to mention... (Score:2)
This is why my current Dream Operating System [Actually Feasible Variant] is "GNU/Solaris" on UltraSPARC hardware. The Solaris kernel with all of its features, the SPARC hardware with all of its coolness, and the GNU userspace tools.
Alternative to the Solaris kernel, I'd like the Linux kernel but with a sane /dev and /proc.
I could tell you about my current Dream Operating System [Complete Science Fiction Variant], but what would be the point? :-)
Network boot, PXE, initrd, rsync (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes the machines very very easy to keep updated (via chroot on the master image server) and practically indestructible.
The increase in my workload when going from supporting it on around 250 machines to around 400 machines was approximately zero.
Re:Network boot, PXE, initrd, rsync (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:linux (Score:2)
Why not Mac OS X? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's prices for higher education are quite reasonable, especially compared to low end Sun-Solaris-Sparc. What say you?
--Paul
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:1, Troll)
I don't think there's anything else you mentioned for which there isn't a Linux equivalent.
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
t's a computer science lab... (Score:1)
Non-geeks should be a non-issue.
This isn't always the case though.
I've certainly come across places where they've needed to make sure that the comptuer labs are useable as general-purpiose computer rooms as well as specialist labs.
TiggsRe:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
I don't think there's anything else you mentioned for which there isn't a Linux equivalent.
Maybe the BSD-based OS, eh?
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:1, Troll)
On some of your points:
JDK 1.4.1: Why the hell do you point this out? Thi
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:1, Redundant)
All IMHO, of course.
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
NFS has been usable and in the kernel since the the NextStep days. I've mounted and exported file systems via NFS on Mac OS X to and from OpenBSD, Linux, and Solaris. Although it's not a common configuration, user home directories can be mounted via NFS as well as AFP, modulo the gaping security issues inh
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:1)
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:1)
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for the assertion that Oracle is available? I've checked Metalink, and there's no reference to it at all. I've seen Sybase on OSX tho'.
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
http://www.oracle.com/start/apple/intro.html?sr
or here (near the bottom):
http://otn.oracle.com/software/products/oracle9
--Paul
Re:Why not Mac OS X? (Score:2)
Data General Intel Unix
Fujitsu-Siemens BS2000/OSD
Fujitsu-Siemens RM200-600E Reliant Unix
HP Alpha OpenVMS
HP Tru64 UNIX
HP-UX Itanium
HP-UX PA-RISC
IBM AIX -Based Systems
IBM NUMA-Q DYNIX/ptx
IBM S/390 based Linux
IBM z/OS (OS/390)
Linux x86
Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows NT for Intel
Microsoft Windows XP
NEC UX/4800
Novell NetWare
SGI Unix
Solaris Operating Environment (SPARC)
Solaris Operating Environment x86
UnixWare (SCO)
Maybe
Sun Rays (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sun Rays (Score:1)
Re:Sun Rays (Score:2)
Re:Sun Rays (Score:1)
Where I was a graduate assistant, [ufl.edu] SunRays are used for a writing environment -- 30 in each of five classrooms. The desktop interface is basically a Windows 9x clone built with TWM (which was adequate, but I think IceWM or something else wou
"I couldn't get agreed with my colleagues" (Score:1, Flamebait)
You may work at a college, but did you actually bother to attend one?!
-psy
Re:"I couldn't get agreed with my colleagues" (Score:2)
Um... I don't think English is his native language. Syntax suggests that he's Scandinavian, probably Swedish.
Go with Linux (Score:2)
I actually run a much smaller lab of 12 workstations of Sun Ultra 5's, and we're running Aurora Linux (link [auroralinux.org]). In my opinion, we'd be much more happy with Intel hardware running Linux, it's more upgradeable (our lab was set up in 2000 and the computers are already too slow to run applications like Mozi
Re:Go with Linux (Score:2)
Things have changed, but not really for a desktop OS.
I wouldn't hesitate to put Solaris on a server for the lab(s) or something like that, but even though I'm an avid supporter of Solaris, putting it on a desktop for a lab might not be that friendly to your students.
As an Undergrad Comp Sci Major.... (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Home Use: It's something you could give people to use on their own computer. The knowledge they learn using Linux in the lab won't be lost. They can go home and install whatever distro you choose if they wish. Whether they do their project in the lab or in the dorm room, they can have exactly the same setup -- if they so choose.
2) Better user interface. Sure you can install Gnome on solaris but most people hoenestly don't.
3) Better Performance/Price ratio: Price is always a factor and is correlated with performance. I couldn't stand the way matlab ran on some solaris blades which weren't updated due to cost. I eventually sucked it up and installed it on my own machine because I couldn't stand waiting literally five minutes for the machine to tell I made a syntax error. (And to all you profs out there: please, PLEASE, test your projects. My class was assigned a project using an (O) N^N algorithm. He hadn't attempted implementing the method, but it would've taken well over 3 months on a 20 proc Sun machine to run our assigned data set.)
Re:As an Undergrad Comp Sci Major.... (Score:1)
Re:As an Undergrad Comp Sci Major.... (Score:2)
cbd.
Re:As an Undergrad Comp Sci Major.... (Score:2)
Personally, I think school money would be better spent on a lab of Linux machins, just pointing out that there is a flipside to the argument...
UC Berkeley uses Solaris (Score:4, Informative)
The package has worked very well for me as a student, and I would think/hope that Sun Rays are cost effective and an easy boxed dumb terminal solution. (Since I've never had such a demand, I don't know how much they cost and such.)
Our web site also runs on Solaris.
I find it rather ironic, but I somewhat thought how appropriate it would be that we'd use a BSD of some sort. Speaking of which, you should really look at BSD as an option -- it isn't nearly as edgy as Linux, and when you're hacking away on the common file server you do NOT want the thing to crash on a few hundred rabid CS undergraduate students close to deadline.
My vote:
-Solaris for a paid for good dumb-terminal option (Comes with the benefits of cost/having to maintain one server, and the obvious downsides of the server failure...which shouldn't be too hard to prevent if there is good supporting staff for that one machine)
-*BSD is more solid/mature overall but may require some more screwing around with and doesn't offer a nice, out of the box, trouble free dumb terminal solution as Sun Rays do.
-Linux is fine, lots of people use it personally and we have many Linux support groups, but for the big servers that have to be solid more than perform at the bleeding edge, I would put a cautious vote against this vs. the other two options above.
Lastly, thank you for fighting and not selling another CS lab to Windows. Students I think will be better prepared at large when exposed to a non-toy operating system and are forced to use it to at least some productive degree. I myself log in via SSH from an XP box and run Exceed (X Windows server), start up emacs, and between that, a GDB buffer, and the terminal, I may as well be sitting at a lab computer. (with lag, as would be expected but not bad at all)
Re:UC Berkeley uses Solaris (Score:1)
Take a look at the BSDs (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it way easier to maintain and keep uptodate - and that without losing stability.
For system updates, you recompile it on one box, let the other systems mount the src folder via NFS and install the files.
Same is true for the ports (i.e. all the additional software). The portupgrade(1) tools make software management *very* easy.
If you don't want to reinstall from scratch once a year, you are on the good side with BSD: the system interfaces rarely change much, and upgrading even works fine between major versions.
Apart from that, BSD has
- way better NFS support than Linux, especially when it comes down to stability
- a great community. People on the mailinglists are both very helpful and inspiring.
- a long history regarding universities.
HTH.
Re:Take a look at the BSDs (Score:2)
When something goes wrong, you really have a detailed manpage for everything.
Ever tried to get decent documentation for a device driver on Linux? (Without having to read the the kernel sources!)
Re:Take a look at the BSDs (Score:2)
Linux was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago. Today, much of Linux being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our servers are going for Linux use. Linux is a simple language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for interchanging programs bet
Re:Take a look at the BSDs (Score:2)
Of course, it always depends. But I find that the BSDs are much more in the unix tradition of "Keep it simple stupid" compared to most commercial Linux distributions. (I.e. the rpm command is not in that tradition.)
As for the language part of your comment. I don't think there is much difference between BSD and Linux when starting to learn. In the end you will run the same userland programs on both machines.
I don't want to put down Linux,
Hardware, not software (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, there's no reason you have to run Linux on Intel. You could get Macs, as one person suggested, or even load Linux on Solaris. Of course, if you get Macs, why not run OSX? Frankly, I think OSX is the nicest UNIX variant out at the moment, it runs everything you'd expect UNIX to run, AND it has two important bonuses for your purposes: (1) Microsoft Office available and (2) the NextStep programming environment (Cocoa), which is widely regarded as one of the finest ever made. It is also very managable, includes good and robust Java support, and Apple does a good job with updates and the like.
Re:Hardware, not software (Score:3, Interesting)
I most definitely have to agree with yo
go with Linux on Dell hardware then (Score:1)
Compare that with the Dell boxes (such as the 2450's) running mostly Win2k but also Linux. I'm
Quit arguing and pick one (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, when you pick one then you'll have to make it work in a consistent, reliable and centralised fashion because you won't be going back. And you can do that with either Linux or Solaris because the solutions you want exist for both; in many cases, it's the same (Unix) software, like Cfengine. Don't spend too long worrying about which is easier or harder to set up and manage; once you've learned how with either OS, which you're going to have to do anyway, then it will be "easy".
Ade_
/
Mmm, well if money is no object. (Score:2)
You see if the computers are simple desktops for the students to do office style work on then go with the cheapest solution. Lintel :)
If the computers are to be running specialised apps, maybe an IDE for development, research software then go with the platform that has the software you need. Obvious perhaps but it is a bit annoying when the software you use to teach doesn't actually run on the computers the students have.
However i
Solaris. Use. Solaris. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hardware, software, servers. All one phone number.
It matters. Anyone who says it doesn't has too much free time on their hands.
A Sun system breaks, great, you call Sun, they come out and fix it. Then, if it was the HD that failed, you type "boot net - install", come back in an hour, and you have a fully working machine.
Besides this, if done right, a Sun lab is a "WOW!" factor.
When I attended Montclair State University [montclair.edu], most labs were PC & Mac. We had one SPARC lab -- SPARCstation 5's & 20's.
That was the "WOW" lab. Whenever the Dean needed to take someone on a tour, that was the lab they stopped in.
And I have to tell you, as an undergraduate, it was DAMNED cool to work on Sun workstations
Forget that KDE/GNOME/whatever bullshit argument. CS students will use whatever they have. It's *GOOD* for them to get exposed to other environments, whether it be OpenWindows/CDE (as it was in my day... Solaris 2.5.1) or CDE/GNOME or whatever.
A desktop is a desktop. Forget this "it's familiar" or "it's easy" bullshit.
What difference does the desktop interface make to people who are majoring in CS?
If it does, they should reexamine why they're there.
Re:Solaris. Use. Solaris. (Score:2)
RedHat's KickStart utility does the same thing; we've got about 170 rack-mounted machines that can be cleanly installed from a KickStart file and RPMs mounted on an NFS share. Takes about 5 minutes (on a 100MB switched LAN) if you're only doing one machine.
Re:Solaris. Use. Solaris. (Score:2)
Someone needs to go over to the server and either a) Enable PXE;
b) Drop in a boot floppy.
Either way, it still requires physical access. If you have PXE boot turned on the whole time, you run some serious risks there...
Go both for better education. (Score:4, Insightful)
my experiences in the professional world (Score:2, Interesting)
1) How easy are they to maintain?
I've found them to be roughly equivalent on the software side of things. There are tools with each that makes it fairly easy. I think the linux tools are a bit more...widespread, perhaps. I've had extensive experience iwth redhat and their tools are pretty good. Debian also has a nice set, but my experience has been limited to fink running on os x (at least, my experience with apt). Reinst
My experience with both suggests... (Score:2)
1. Cost - Obvious: Lintel hardware and software costs are _MUCH_ lower.
2. Maintenance - Lintel is again cheaper and easier to manage overall in a lab environment.
3. Tools - This is the major determining factor in my opinion. The tools available on Solaris are outdated and generally suck. In my past experience with Solaris, I found myself replacing the Sun tools with GNU tools and other open source softwar
Re:My experience with both suggests... (Score:1)
Use standard OSes/distros (Score:2)
If you are worried about performance or really low costs, just go with Linux or FreeBSD. However, as much flame-attracting as it may sound, Solari
Google manages 15K Linux PCs (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more of who is the sysadmin, how much control the sysadmin has over the systems and what the systems are for. And then there's the budget of course.
With Linux and the *BSDs a lot of the tools come free. If you're going Linux pick a distro that you find easy to do mass updates for.
Re:Google manages 15K Linux PCs (Score:2)
You are talking about two completely different sets of requirements(Google and college).
You can't compare the two and come up with any thing useful.
Have you considered SunRays? (Score:2)
We have a boatload (600+) of them at our school.
Good Things:
Bad Things:
Re:Have you considered SunRays? (Score:2, Insightful)
yes they are different (Score:2)
As far as administration in general, RH has a few nice GUI tools if you like that but so does Sun. Both are
install apt-get for Red Hat (Score:1)
Once you've got that done, set up a cronjob to run "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade -dy" every night. Check the output first thing in the morning, and
Re:install apt-get for Red Hat (Score:2)
FreeBSD lab (Score:1)
The
Errrm, hold on. (Score:1, Informative)
"I couldn't get agreed with my colleagues about the amount of efforts required to manage a hundred of Linux PCs vs. a hundred Sparc boxes."
OK, first up - Solaris doesn't have to run on Sparc. You can get Solaris for x86. So, that in mind, think - Do you want (to install and then support) x86 boxes *or* SPARC boxes? What does the rest of your infrastructure use? Is there a skills base for looking after SPARC stuff?
Next up - What apps do you want to use? Do they run on Linux, and do they run on Solaris?
Considering hardware (Score:2)
On the Intel side management via serial port is available on many high-end boards, but it is in a state of continous flux and not consistent.
Having said this, as far as the OS goes, having once managed huge numbers of Sun, Linux and FreeBSD machines, I say FreeBSD wins hands down. I am not quite sure what it is about
Go with SunRays!!! (Score:1)