Very Computer

I thought many of you may have done this before..

We are in a solaris environment and we are looking into migrating some
servers to either SuSE or Redhat Linux on Intel boxes. Obviously,
there are some applications which are more suitable for migration, say
databases because there is less work on the application side.

Besides databases which kind of (third party) applications runs better
in a Linux environment ?
How do you decide which applications to be moved to Linux?

Note that even with databases, I assume not all databases are good
candidates because the intel boxes are 32-bit and may not be able to
handle applications that requires a large SGA in the case of Oracle.

thanks
anna

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

[..]

Quote:> We are in a solaris environment and we are looking into migrating some
> servers to either SuSE or Redhat Linux on Intel boxes. Obviously,
[..]
> How do you decide which applications to be moved to Linux?

Which is available? I'd test out any proprietary stuff before
even thinking about it. OSS stuff, apache/squid/sendmail/bind and
alike don't need much work/testing to migrate.

Quote:> Note that even with databases, I assume not all databases are good
> candidates because the intel boxes are 32-bit and may not be able to
> handle applications that requires a large SGA in the case of Oracle.

What are you smoking? Ask your sun sales guy about the VZ20 dual
AMD opteron 64bit box, there's suse/RH & oracle for the system.
Solaris is rumored to be available (64bit) for opteron during the
year.

Good luck

--
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA2Jn+AkPEju3Se5QRAgv4AKCj2/hkpp/xj8gA05dwp9vTRjfhggCeP5VM
iiQtd4QRPZ7B/s164PLKOvw=
=qEAp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nah; the reverse (upgrading to Solaris from Linux) is more likely.

Quote:> Besides databases which kind of (third party) applications runs better
> in a Linux environment ?

What makes you think databases work better on Linux than on Solaris?

I smell a troll...

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net

[fup-to set to comp.unix.admin.]

Quote:> I thought many of you may have done this before..

Nah.

Quote:> We are in a solaris environment and we are looking into migrating some
> servers to either SuSE or Redhat Linux on Intel boxes.

On what basis did you narrow it down to these two choices already?
What do those ``some servers'' do?

[snip]

Quote:> Besides databases which kind of (third party) applications runs better
> in a Linux environment ?

Wrong question. You're asking both the people that will de-facto answer
with ``nothing'' and with ``everything''. This makes for perfect troll
bait. And you're forgetting to define your ``better''. The very fact
that solaris still exists means that its good for _something_ that linux
can't or won't deliver.

So, narrow the question down to what gains you want, and what are you
willing to give up for it? What may it cost?

Quote:> How do you decide which applications to be moved to Linux?

I have my own ideas of what I'd want to run on what, but what I end
up with in a particular installation may well be different from that,
simply because of other factors than my personal preferences alone.

The first criterion is, ``does it run at all?'', after that you're going
to look into manageability and performance. Don't discount your (current
and future) hires and what their skillsets are. What is more important
to you is, well, up to you, really.

What do you want to focus on? What kind of people do you have and/or are
willing to hire to manage your applications?

Quote:> Note that even with databases, I assume not all databases are good
> candidates because the intel boxes are 32-bit and may not be able to
> handle applications that requires a large SGA in the case of Oracle.

I like ObOtherPosters comment on this, much more than I like your
assumption. Besides, databases range in size and complexity from flat
text files to behemoths that require large RAIDs with solid state disks
(making for RAEDs, really) just for the indexes. What ballpark are you
playing in?

Anyway, this is just the kind of job you'd ask a consultant to tailor
an answer for you, instead of trolling newsgroups for generic answers.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

Unfortunately, the choice of OS (i.e. redhat/SuSE) is not decided by me.

Runs better is a wrong description, but in general, it is "easier" to
migrate databases, because there is less involvement from the
developer. Note that even with databases, I see that there may still
be a problem with 32 bit machine, i.e. not all databases are good
candidate for migration.

I am interested to know what applications people have chosen to
migrate to Linux.

I am interested in what applications people have migrated to Linux and
why they make those choices.

Obviously, I will not get an answer from people who did not have the
experience.

[snip: silly questions and no answers to the inevitable information question]

Quote:

> I smell a troll...

Maybe it wasn't intended[1], but I tend to agree here.

[1] I'll take the top-posting as a hint that the OP really is clueless.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

On 22 Jun 2004 12:47:40 -0700

Wrong approach. You don't start by selecting the solution
and then start looking for the problems. If you're looking
into lowering costs, you will find that Sun has some
pretty low-cost boxes that'll allow you to reduce your
hardware and maintenance costs while avoiding an expensive
OS migration.

Also, you've already narrowed it down to SuSE or RH. Why?
Are you planning on getting support contracts? If so, please
do a full cost/benefit analysis. If you're not planning
on buying support, Debian is probably a better choice.
And why not consider one of the BSDs?

Quote:> Obviously,
> there are some applications which are more suitable for migration, say
> databases because there is less work on the application side.

But they are exactly the applications that you do not
want to run on cheap hardware, and an OS (SuSE for example)
that sees a major release every six months. These are systems
that are not exposed to the Internet, so you can go for
stability instead of chasing the latest OS security update.
Use Debian, or FreeBSD.

Quote:> Besides databases which kind of (third party) applications runs better
> in a Linux environment ?
> How do you decide which applications to be moved to Linux?

How about getting your feet wet doing a couple of _new_
applications on Linux? To really benefit from Linux, you
need to change your approach to computing - you and your
staff are in charge, and technically competent to install,
administer, and service your OS and applications. If you
don't have the required knowledge, acquire it by installing
a few non-critical systems on Linux boxes, but don't try to
imitate the Sun business model by buying RedHat's expensive
versions and expecting them to do for you what Sun's service
contracts give you. You _need_ the required expertise in house,
or you risk being sorely disappointed.

Quote:> Note that even with databases, I assume not all databases are good
> candidates because the intel boxes are 32-bit and may not be able to
> handle applications that requires a large SGA in the case of Oracle.

There are 64-bit Linux boxes, but be sure to buy high-quality
gear. The low-end AMD stuff can be pretty grotty.

Take care,

--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Stefaan, but sometimes
folks are put into this position throught no fault
of their own.  The question, as presented by the
managementcritters could well have been ...

"Which version of Linux are we migrating to?"

... meaning that the decision is already
cast in stone (with out without a good technical
reason).  This may be the Original Poster's
dilemma.

As you pointed out, OS migrations can be
very costly, but the OP may not be in
a position to question that particular
decision.

[Rest Snipped, good ideas there, tho.]

NPL

--
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious"
  - A. Bloch

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

[..]

Quote:> Also, you've already narrowed it down to SuSE or RH. Why?
> Are you planning on getting support contracts? If so, please

If you are planning on running "oracle" as mentioned by the OP
and have other proprietary sw (backup/etc) that needs to run on
the systems, there won't be much left then RH/suse enterprise,
which is supported.

--
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA2Y1GAkPEju3Se5QRAifmAJ9r30H1cysHC1H7O49l/AnkSaSF3ACdHhiT
1rmefJ8gSqct7Kh1Sf/oHYc=
=GGOh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Because the hardware is cheaper, the initial license fee is lower,
there are more people available in the job market and they tend to
be paid slightly lower than Solaris folks.  Those aren't the only
considerations.  The maintenance fees are the same in both options
for example.

Quote:> Obviously,
> there are some applications which are more suitable for migration, say
> databases because there is less work on the application side.

Some applictions aren't available at all on Linux, some not at all
on Solaris.  What applications your site uses makes all the
difference in the range from trivial (like a commodity web server)
through impossible (like some cutom third party application not
available on Linux).

Quote:> Note that even with databases, I assume not all databases are good
> candidates because the intel boxes are 32-bit and may not be able to
> handle applications that requires a large SGA in the case of Oracle.

With databases the issue is largely determined by size.  "Small"
databases and OLTP tend to run just fine on the smaller Intel
boxes so those tend to do great moving to Linux.  If your company
has databases that are very modular and small, you will benefit.
"Large" datawarehouses that have very high throughput requirements
tend to require larger servers with big buses and high throughput
designs.  A multi-terabyte DB2 datawarehouse will run better and
faster on AIX or HPUX hardware than Linux if it can fix on Linux
at all, and can easily cost less on the larger boxes because
configuring an Intel box with lots of SAN and gigabit ethernet
cards takes the largest most expensive boxes on the market in
the Intel world but just regular ones in the AIX/HPUX world that
specializes in big boomers.

By the way, please learn about top posting and bottom posting so
you can better use UseNet.  UseNet has its own standards that
predate Microsoft e-mail behavior.

Well, there's Solaris x86, which makes that point moot, as
they'll run on the same hardware.

Quote:> the initial license fee is lower,

Check that very carefully. Often it isn't the case when
you've actually considered all the bits you need to buy
(and when I last looked, it wasn't the case for at least
one of the two distros mentioned above at all).

Quote:> there are more people available in the job market and they tend to
> be paid slightly lower than Solaris folks.

Again, check you're comparing skillsets correctly. Staff
capable of keeping business critical systems and applications
running aren't going to be paid differently. Finding staff of
comparable skillsets could well be a problem though.

--
Andrew Gabriel
Consultant Software Engineer

Yes.

Quote:> We are in a solaris environment and we are looking into migrating some
> servers to either SuSE or Redhat Linux on Intel boxes. Obviously,
> there are some applications which are more suitable for migration, say
> databases because there is less work on the application side.

You don't say why.  Solaris is a reliable, stable, solution and if the
cost of support from Sun is high, then you could go to a 3rd party, or
if everything is mature abandon support altogether.  You need to do a
risk analysis.

Just because linux is "free" does not mean you will be gaining
anything by abandoning something you already own.  And there are
"free" options for Solaris too.

That said, if you need a lot more horsepower, it might make sense to
use cheap generic X86 or AMD64 hardware under Linux to expand
capabilities.

Quote:> Besides databases which kind of (third party) applications runs better
> in a Linux environment ?
> How do you decide which applications to be moved to Linux?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  I use a large, distributed,
real-time navigation system that runs on both Linux and Solaris.  You
can even mix the two in a single network-bund system because it is
written to use generic unix calls.

Mathematica works fine with both, I can't see a difference.

I can't think of any reason why a particular class of application
would work "better" under linux or solaris, if it is available on
both.  That said, individual applications may make use of individual
optomisations, and the vendors should be able to assist.

The Linux desktops, and thier user apps like word processing, etc. are
very good.  Possibly better than CDE on Solaris.  But I've run Gnome
and KDE both on Solaris, so that's not a killer reason to convert.

I would say that setting up cups print servers is ridiculously easy on
modern Linux, and using linux/samba as a print/file server is
straightforward and may involve easier maintainance if you routinely
change things about.  But once a SOlaris system is up, it is pretty
much up for good.

Quote:> Note that even with databases, I assume not all databases are good
> candidates because the intel boxes are 32-bit and may not be able to
> handle applications that requires a large SGA in the case of Oracle.

This is possible.  But there is AMD64 and modern distros handle huge
disk spaces.  You don't say if you will be moving from oracle to a OSS
database that comes with Linux.  Most of the commercial products have
been ported, but you won't save much money by using them AFAIK.

Solaris and Linux are both *nix.  They have so much in common, that
from the application point of view it's difficult to choose between
them.  If there is a commercial advantage to switching, then that will
dictate your progress.

Equally, the choice of Linux distro is not the first decision to be
made - it may be the last.

You might also consider that if you're not getting as many (positive)
answers as you were hoping, it might be an indication that people are not
doing this kind of thing? or not as much as you were led to believe?

Personally, I have been running Linux machines for almost 10 years,
different distributions (Slackware, RedHat, Mandrake, and now SuSE). I
keep my really important stuff (like /home directories and databases) on
Solaris systems. I have had Linux blow up (rarely) and take data with it.
I have never had Solaris destroy data (but I still do backups!). I have
found that Solaris behaves better in failure modes (like when swap gets
full? when disks get full? etc.). In those kinds of cases, I have
seen Linux lock up. (I suppose I should be saying GNU/Linux everywhere?)

As another poster suggested: plan your systems, choose your functionality
and reliability targets, then "design" and/or select the tools to use.
Linux is good for some things. Solaris (or AIX, or HP/UX, but I have less
experience with them) is good for other things. Windoze (much as I dislike
it) might still have to lurk around (to access data that is held hostage).

So, in summary, I'm working at moving all my desktop functionality
(finally) away from Windoze, to either Linux or Solaris or both. At this
point, I only boot Windoze once or twice a month, so I'm getting there. I
am NOT looking to migrate the stuff that I have put on Solaris to Linux.
As the expression goes: "Horses for courses!"

Quote:>> Anyway, this is just the kind of job you'd ask a consultant to tailor
>> an answer for you, instead of trolling newsgroups for generic answers.

If this is an important question, hiring a consulant might be a good move.
If they take your money, they have some responsibility for their advice.
In cases of clear malpractice, you might have grounds to sue for damages.

--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.