Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Johan Kullsta » Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:00:00




> OK, I feel cold and need flames to warm me up.  I want to list the reasons
> why I prefer HP-UX over Linux.

there are many reasons to prefer hp-ux.  there are also reasons to
like linux.

Quote:> The main reason is the Mirror-UX utility available as an extension of the
> LVM program. The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.  I
> don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
> your data unless it is backed up.

sounds good.  you can do raid mirroring in linux btw.

Quote:> LVM, even without optional mirroring, makes filesystem management piece of
> cake. If you want to decrease or increase a logical volume such as /usr,
> /opt, /var/, /stand, /tmp/, /var/adm/crash, just bring the box to single
> user mode, unmount it, run lvextend or lvreduce and and boot back up to
> multi. There is even a way to do it in multi-user mode. How does one do
> that in Linux?  Well, one can't, since everything is under "/".  Fill up
> your /tmp and everything fills up. To decrease a logical volume, one has to
> rebuild the machine.

everything is not necessarily under /.  utilities to modify ext2
partitions would be nice and i conceed that hp-ux has an edge there.

Quote:> Software management with SD-UX. swlist, swremove. Patches. I am not aware
> of a Linux program that does software management as well.

rpm works well for me.  what does sd-ux offer that rpm does not?

Quote:> Books. HPUX has dozens and dozens of support books. Every man page is also
> available via hard copy, I found that very useful when dealing with
> problematic systems in single-user mode that don't have man pages
> available.

given a printer and couple reams of paper, you can print hardcopies of
man pages from linux.  groff makes some fine looking paper manuals.

Quote:> There are many books that go in depth about Unix subjects on
> the HPUX platform, unlike very entry-level Linux books I see at book
> stores. HPUX books like
> HPUX System Administrator Tasks - very useful
> Configuring HPUX for Peripherals
> Installing HPUX and upgrading from HP-UX 10.0x to 10.20
> HP 700/96 and HP 700/96ES HP 700/98 and HP 700/98ES
> High Availability Storage Systems
> Managing MC/Service Guard  (BTW, heard of MC/Service Guard for Linux?)
> Installing and Administering NFS Services
> Installing HPUX 11.0 and Updating HPUX 10.x to 11.0
> The list goes on and on and on.  These are very good manuals that make
> Linux books I see look like 5-th grade learning materials. The material is
> available on a CDROM (LROM).
> Hardware. HPUX machines are all SCSI. Most Linux machines are not, and do
> not make as stable servers as all-SCSI machines.

this is not a linux fault.  linux can use many scsi controllers and
devices and if a person wants scsi, they can have it.

Quote:> The bargains people see in Walmart and the Computer Shopper are good
> deals, but not necessarily the best machines available.  These
> 300-400Mhz machines might have the listed CPU speed, but the BUS is
> typically a lot slower, and that is the bottleneck. I heard an
> estimate that a 300Mhz PC is equal to a 100Mhz HPUX server in terms
> of overall speed. The HPUX workstations I have seen are so stable. I
> keep them up for months. The only reason mine crashed recently was
> because I accidently stepped on the power cord under the desk and
> unplugged it. HPUX (and Sun, and DEC) has better hardware, much
> better kick-ass monitors compared to any PC ones I have seen.

you can run linux on hp pa-risc, sun-sparc, dec-alpha, so what exactly
is it you are trying to say here?  can you run hp-ux on a sun machine?
will it run on a POS PC which you denigrate?  linux has the upper hand
here.

it's not linux' fault that PC hardware sucks.  we didn't choose to
base the world's most popular computer on a loser architechure like
intel's x86 line.  it's a tribute to linux that it works as well as it
does.

Quote:> HPUX is popular. So many data centers around the country have powerful
> servers running it, if you know HPUX, you will always have a job, more jobs
> than you can handle. I don't think this statement applies to Linux.

if you know unix, you'll have a job.  it doesn't matter if you call it
hp-ux, solaris, sunos, bsd, linux &c.

Quote:> What else. HPUX 10.20 is Y2K compliant with patches. 11.0 is a 64 bit
> operating system. Does Linux have a 64 bit OS? Is Lunix Y2K compliant?  How
> do you know? Is it officially certified as being compliant?

yes!  linux is a 64 bit OS on 64 bit platforms such as dec-alpha
boxen.  linux is y2k compliant.  we don't need no steekin' official
certifications!  ;-)

Quote:> I might give Linux a try when it evolves to the level I am comfortable
> with. I like the idea of freeware and non-proprietary hardware, but at this
> time I do not feel it is in my best interest to invest in the Linux
> platform. Feel to free to convince me otherwise. Linux is good for what it
> does: A learning platform, a way to get started. I think HPUX and Solaris
> both exceed it in every way except for price.

to score one for the free software foundation, the gnu utilities which
ship with linux are often *much* friendlier than what ships with hp-ux
and solaris.  emacs is a great editor imho.  gnu less, tar, sed &c all
exceed the user friendliness of the stock proprietary unix offering.
ncftp strikes me as a *far* better client than the usual ftp.

--

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Ross Boyl » Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:00:00


I suggest continuing this thread in comp.os.linux.advocacy

--------------------------------------------
To reply via email, edit out the "remove" and "me"
from the address

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Ilya » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00


OK, I feel cold and need flames to warm me up.  I want to list the reasons
why I prefer HP-UX over Linux.

The main reason is the Mirror-UX utility available as an extension of the
LVM program. The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.  I
don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
your data unless it is backed up.

LVM, even without optional mirroring, makes filesystem management piece of
cake. If you want to decrease or increase a logical volume such as /usr,
/opt, /var/, /stand, /tmp/, /var/adm/crash, just bring the box to single
user mode, unmount it, run lvextend or lvreduce and and boot back up to
multi. There is even a way to do it in multi-user mode. How does one do
that in Linux?  Well, one can't, since everything is under "/".  Fill up
your /tmp and everything fills up. To decrease a logical volume, one has to
rebuild the machine.

Software management with SD-UX. swlist, swremove. Patches. I am not aware
of a Linux program that does software management as well.

Books. HPUX has dozens and dozens of support books. Every man page is also
available via hard copy, I found that very useful when dealing with
problematic systems in single-user mode that don't have man pages
available.  There are many books that go in depth about Unix subjects on
the HPUX platform, unlike very entry-level Linux books I see at book
stores. HPUX books like

HPUX System Administrator Tasks - very useful
Configuring HPUX for Peripherals
Installing HPUX and upgrading from HP-UX 10.0x to 10.20
HP 700/96 and HP 700/96ES HP 700/98 and HP 700/98ES
High Availability Storage Systems
Managing MC/Service Guard  (BTW, heard of MC/Service Guard for Linux?)
Installing and Administering NFS Services
Installing HPUX 11.0 and Updating HPUX 10.x to 11.0

The list goes on and on and on.  These are very good manuals that make
Linux books I see look like 5-th grade learning materials. The material is
available on a CDROM (LROM).

Hardware. HPUX machines are all SCSI. Most Linux machines are not, and do
not make as stable servers as all-SCSI machines. The bargains people see in
Walmart and the Computer Shopper are good deals, but not necessarily the
best machines available.  These 300-400Mhz machines might have the listed
CPU speed, but the BUS is typically a lot slower, and that is the
bottleneck. I heard an estimate that a 300Mhz PC is equal to a 100Mhz HPUX
server in terms of overall speed. The HPUX workstations I have seen are so
stable. I keep them up for months. The only reason mine crashed recently
was because I accidently stepped on the power cord under the desk and
unplugged it. HPUX (and Sun, and DEC) has better hardware, much better
kick-ass monitors compared to any PC ones I have seen.

HPUX is popular. So many data centers around the country have powerful
servers running it, if you know HPUX, you will always have a job, more jobs
than you can handle. I don't think this statement applies to Linux.

What else. HPUX 10.20 is Y2K compliant with patches. 11.0 is a 64 bit
operating system. Does Linux have a 64 bit OS? Is Lunix Y2K compliant?  How
do you know? Is it officially certified as being compliant?

I might give Linux a try when it evolves to the level I am comfortable
with. I like the idea of freeware and non-proprietary hardware, but at this
time I do not feel it is in my best interest to invest in the Linux
platform. Feel to free to convince me otherwise. Linux is good for what it
does: A learning platform, a way to get started. I think HPUX and Solaris
both exceed it in every way except for price.

      ================================================================
      |                                                              |
      |           In Case Of Nuclear War, Ignore This Message        |
      |                                                              |
      ================================================================

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Dave Bro » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00




>> OK, I feel cold and need flames to warm me up.  I want to list the reasons
>> why I prefer HP-UX over Linux.

>there are many reasons to prefer hp-ux.  there are also reasons to
>like linux.

Good responses to Ilya's posits.  

As a user of AIX (IBM's--which innovated the LVM that Ilya appreciates
so much on HP-UX), I'd love to have it on my machine at home.  AIX
has many features that I wish Linux had.  

On the other hand, I couldn't possibly afford the applications which have
been ported to AIX.  My experience is that applications which have been
ported to both Linux and "commercial *nixes" will be 10 times more expensive
for the "commercial *nix" versions

Likewise, in the hardware department, I can go to local computer supermarket
and buy a device that will probably have a Linux driver somewhere.  But
not be able to plug it in to a RS-6000 or a HP or a Sun and have it do anything.
But if I go to IBM for a similar-function device, the price will be 4 to 10 times
what a "consumer device" will be priced.

I have to agree that many standard unix utilities on AIX do not have all the
features that Gnu utilities have--but then I can download AIX ports of Gnu
utilities when I want to.

So it kinda boils down to "If you have unlimited bucks, go for the Cadillacs..."

--
Dave Brown   Austin, TX

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Ilya » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> As a user of AIX (IBM's--which innovated the LVM that Ilya appreciates
> so much on HP-UX), I'd love to have it on my machine at home.  AIX
> has many features that I wish Linux had.  

AIX invented LVM? Thanks for the information. Learn something new everyday.
I suppose the methodology is the same, but the syntax is slightly different
among Sun's, IBM's and HP-UX's implementation.

Anyway, the key point is that LVM/Mirrox-UX is a great tool that Linux does
not have, and once you use it, you can't live without it. I like
redundancy.

If it becomes obvious to me that Linux *can* match HP-UX or other
commercial version of Unix given the criteria I listed, I will get it, that
simple. (Actually, I do have a Linux CD - S.u.S.E Linux 5.2, I just do not
have a PC, and I am not sure I need to invest in a PC).

Quote:> On the other hand, I couldn't possibly afford the applications which have
> been ported to AIX.  My experience is that applications which have been
> ported to both Linux and "commercial *nixes" will be 10 times more expensive
> for the "commercial *nix" versions

And you are probably right. These tools aren't cheap.

Quote:> Likewise, in the hardware department, I can go to local computer supermarket
> and buy a device that will probably have a Linux driver somewhere.  But
> not be able to plug it in to a RS-6000 or a HP or a Sun and have it do anything.
> But if I go to IBM for a similar-function device, the price will be 4 to 10 times
> what a "consumer device" will be priced.

And that explains the fascination people have with Linux.

Quote:> I have to agree that many standard unix utilities on AIX do not have all the
> features that Gnu utilities have--but then I can download AIX ports of Gnu
> utilities when I want to.
> So it kinda boils down to "If you have unlimited bucks, go for the Cadillacs..."

I would not necessarily call HP-UX the Cadillac of Unixes, and Linux the
Ford Pento. It is more like they are the same model, one with a bit more
options that require more attention with some benefits.
 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Jimmy Dorf » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> OK, I feel cold and need flames to warm me up.  I want to list the reasons
> why I prefer HP-UX over Linux.

You'll get more flames comparing Linux to some Microsoft OS
(apples to oranges)
rather than to another flavor of Unix (apples to apples).  I
fear the
reason for this is that some Linux advocates are not
experienced with
other Unix's.

Quote:

> The main reason is the Mirror-UX utility available as an extension of the
> LVM program. The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.  I
> don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
> your data unless it is backed up.

> LVM, even without optional mirroring, makes filesystem management piece of
> cake. If you want to decrease or increase a logical volume such as /usr,
> /opt, /var/, /stand, /tmp/, /var/adm/crash, just bring the box to single
> user mode, unmount it, run lvextend or lvreduce and and boot back up to
> multi. There is even a way to do it in multi-user mode. How does one do
> that in Linux?  Well, one can't, since everything is under "/".  Fill up
> your /tmp and everything fills up. To decrease a logical volume, one has to
> rebuild the machine.

Linux does need LVM like HP/UX, AIX, etc..  
Linux also needs a journaling file system... which
is being worked on.

Quote:

> Software management with SD-UX. swlist, swremove. Patches. I am not aware
> of a Linux program that does software management as well.

Rpm is very good, have you seen it work ?  I feel it's
superior to
AIX and Solaris packages (can't comment on SD-UX).

<book discussion removed>

Quote:

> Hardware. HPUX machines are all SCSI. Most Linux machines are not, and do
> not make as stable servers as all-SCSI machines. The bargains people see in
> Walmart and the Computer Shopper are good deals, but not necessarily the
> best machines available.  These 300-400Mhz machines might have the listed
> CPU speed, but the BUS is typically a lot slower, and that is the
> bottleneck. I heard an estimate that a 300Mhz PC is equal to a 100Mhz HPUX
> server in terms of overall speed.

Performance Computing, December 1998:
Dell XPS PII 333, runing UnixWare: SPECint = 14.1
HP B180  180Mhz PA-7300LC        : SPECint =  9.2

Bus speed on modern PC's is 100MHz (66MHz on above example).
Nice PC's use SCSI.  My Linux PC is all SCSI.

Quote:> The HPUX workstations I have seen are so
> stable. I keep them up for months. The only reason mine crashed recently
> was because I accidently stepped on the power cord under the desk and
> unplugged it. HPUX (and Sun, and DEC) has better hardware,

Quality PC's can be assembled that are equal to traditional
workstations.
(of course, *PC's are often sold)

Quote:> much better
> kick-ass monitors compared to any PC ones I have seen.

A Sony Trinitron is a Sony Trinitron.  The one on my home
PC is slightly better (newer) than the one on my HP 9000 at
work.

Quote:> What else. HPUX 10.20 is Y2K compliant with patches. 11.0 is a 64 bit
> operating system. Does Linux have a 64 bit OS? Is Lunix Y2K compliant?  How
> do you know? Is it officially certified as being compliant?

1)Yes (64 bit on Alpha and UltraSPARC).
2)Yes
3)I know because Linus has no reason to lie -  corporations
  have a great reason ($$$$)to lie about their products.
  Because of open source, a lie would be quickly spotted
  and made public.  
4)Again, my trust in Linux developers is GREATER than my
trust
  in any corporate entity

Quote:

> I might give Linux a try when it evolves to the level I am comfortable
> with. I like the idea of freeware and non-proprietary hardware, but at this
> time I do not feel it is in my best interest to invest in the Linux
> platform. Feel to free to convince me otherwise. Linux is good for what it
> does: A learning platform, a way to get started. I think HPUX and Solaris
> both exceed it in every way except for price.

Solaris is now free for non-commercial use (i.e. learning)
on both
Intel and SPARC platforms, so only HPUX has the price
problem :)

-Jimmy

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Walter van der Sche » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.
> I don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
> your data unless it is backed up.

AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

Ofcourse the performance of IDE vs. SCSI is not in this discussion,
and is not rellivant.

I for one, do not have any experience with RAID 1 under Linux, so I
can't actually comment on its behavior, but I can state that it is in
there.

Walter

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Ilya » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00




>> The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
>> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
>> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
>> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.
>> I don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
>> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
>> your data unless it is backed up.
> AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
> software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
> So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
> As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

How would I do that? Any web pages descrbine that? I don't have Linux but I
would like to take a look anyway.

As for cost-effectiveness, IDE may be the optimum choice, but what's
optimum is rarely best.

Quote:> Ofcourse the performance of IDE vs. SCSI is not in this discussion,
> and is not rellivant.

Actually, it is 100% relevant as the component of the whole system.

Quote:> I for one, do not have any experience with RAID 1 under Linux, so I
> can't actually comment on its behavior, but I can state that it is in
> there.

So we are making progress.
 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by drso.. » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00



:> The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
:> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
:> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
:> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.
:> I don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
:> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
:> your data unless it is backed up.

: AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
: software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
: So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
: As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

        Unfortunately if a drive dies in your Linux RAID setup your system
will completely puke. (well, at least RAID 0)  Use hardware RAID if you need
it.  

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blinky lights are the essence of  |  we'll just print more."  
modern technology!                |  Caffeine underflow (brain dumped)

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Aaron Bred » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00



says...



> :> The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
> :> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
> :> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
> :> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.
> :> I don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
> :> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
> :> your data unless it is backed up.

> : AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
> : software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
> : So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
> : As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

>    Unfortunately if a drive dies in your Linux RAID setup your system
> will completely puke. (well, at least RAID 0)  Use hardware RAID if you need
> it.  

If a drive dies in a Hardware RAID 0, the entire striped set is
unavailable.
RAID 0 is striping with no parity - no error correction!
RAID 1 is mirroring - 2 copies of all data
RAID 4 is striping with a dedicated parity disk - tends to be slow.
RAID 5 is striping with rotating parity

RAID 1 and 5 are the most often used for redundancy.
RAID 0 is very fast but if any drive fails, you lose ALL data!

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Mark Hah » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> OK, I feel cold and need flames to warm me up.  I want to list the reasons
> why I prefer HP-UX over Linux.

why bother?  you clearly didn't expend even the trivial effort it takes
to surf Linux web sites to find md or rpm.  and you're so deluded about
the workstation/scsi mystique that you vastly misestimate the speed of
the machines you use.

Quote:> Hardware. HPUX machines are all SCSI. Most Linux machines are not, and do
> not make as stable servers as all-SCSI machines. The bargains people see in

this is stupidly wrong.  as a trivial example, UDMA is _significantly_
more stable than SCSI, merely because all its transfers are checksummed.

Quote:> Walmart and the Computer Shopper are good deals, but not necessarily the
> best machines available.  These 300-400Mhz machines might have the listed
> CPU speed, but the BUS is typically a lot slower, and that is the

nonsense.  HPUX boxes don't use any magical buses.

Quote:> bottleneck. I heard an estimate that a 300Mhz PC is equal to a 100Mhz HPUX
> server in terms of overall speed. The HPUX workstations I have seen are so

that's hilarious!

Quote:> stable. I keep them up for months. The only reason mine crashed recently

what a crock: it's as trivial to keep up Linux on PCs as it is to
keep up HPUX boxes.  yes, I have done both.

Quote:> unplugged it. HPUX (and Sun, and DEC) has better hardware, much better
> kick-ass monitors compared to any PC ones I have seen.

<snicker> pick the same monitor up from any PC store, probably a Sony,
Nokia, NEC E-series, etc.

Quote:> HPUX is popular. So many data centers around the country have powerful
> servers running it, if you know HPUX, you will always have a job, more jobs
> than you can handle. I don't think this statement applies to Linux.

phaaa.  HPUX is trivial, as is all admin.  an admin who thinks that "knowing"
an OS is some kind of credential is pretty lame.  a good admin can find and
use docs for a new OS in short order.

Quote:> What else. HPUX 10.20 is Y2K compliant with patches. 11.0 is a 64 bit
> operating system. Does Linux have a 64 bit OS? Is Lunix Y2K compliant?  How
> do you know? Is it officially certified as being compliant?

concern about Y2k is as anal-retentive as "certification".

Quote:> time I do not feel it is in my best interest to invest in the Linux

great, have a good life, send us a postcard sometime.
 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Jimmy Dorf » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00





> >> The standard LVM allows one to manage disks and logical
> >> volumes very easily, but Mirror-UX let's one mirror disks. Have 2 disks in
> >> the volume group, mirrored, one crashes and you don't even notice it. If
> >> that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Make them both bootable.
> >> I don't know anything about Linux but from what I heard an analogous program
> >> that does not exist. Under Linux, the hard drive crashes, and you lose all
> >> your data unless it is backed up.

> > AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
> > software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
> > So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
> > As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

> How would I do that? Any web pages descrbine that? I don't have Linux but I
> would like to take a look anyway.

> As for cost-effectiveness, IDE may be the optimum choice, but what's
> optimum is rarely best.

> > Ofcourse the performance of IDE vs. SCSI is not in this discussion,
> > and is not rellivant.

> Actually, it is 100% relevant as the component of the whole system.

> > I for one, do not have any experience with RAID 1 under Linux, so I
> > can't actually comment on its behavior, but I can state that it is in
> > there.

> So we are making progress.

Almost,  Your logical volumes are more flexible than just
RAID.

Here is why (example uses fictional notation):

On place I worked had the following on a DG server:

/var/mail was mounted on /dev/lv00

/dev/lv00 was not a real device, it is a logical volume.
lv00 contains real devices (/dev/sde4, /dev/sdc2,
/dev/sdd6).
The real devices can be dynamically added.  DGUX let the
lv's
be shrunk as well.  At one point, the logical volume that
/var/mail was on contained 11 physical volumes!

The extra layer of abstraction makes RAID and such
simple to do.

I don't know of an easy, way to do this in a stable Linux
kernel.  I hope there will be, since I use and promote
Linux!

-Jimmy

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Veksler Michae » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00




> > LVM, even without optional mirroring, makes filesystem management piece of
> > cake. If you want to decrease or increase a logical volume such as /usr,
> > /opt, /var/, /stand, /tmp/, /var/adm/crash, just bring the box to single
> > user mode, unmount it, run lvextend or lvreduce and and boot back up to
> > multi. There is even a way to do it in multi-user mode. How does one do
> > that in Linux?  Well, one can't, since everything is under "/".  Fill up
> > your /tmp and everything fills up. To decrease a logical volume, one has
> > to rebuild the machine.

Why don't you partition your disk ? I have 8 partitions on my disk
(maybe that is too much).
Filling up /tmp partition does not affect my /home or /usr/local
partitions.

Quote:>  Linux does need LVM like HP/UX, AIX, etc..  
>  Linux also needs a journaling file system... which
>  is being worked on.

Right.

Linux also needs support for *big* files (over 2GB or even 4GB).
Some may argue it needs an undelete capability as well (It is possible
to do a cheap implementation of this in kernel. Much cheaper and robust
than a recycle bin implementation done by "/bin/rm" or "unlink()"
wrappers.).

  Michael

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by N. Richard Caldwe » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00





>> AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
>> software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
>> So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
>> As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

>How would I do that? Any web pages descrbine that? I don't have Linux but I
>would like to take a look anyway.

http://linas.org/linux/raid.html talks about RAID solutions for Linux
http://linux.msede.com/lvm/ talks about a Logical Device Manager
currently in under development.

Quote:>As for cost-effectiveness, IDE may be the optimum choice, but what's
>optimum is rarely best.

Yeah, so if you need something better than IDE, buy something better.
Linux does support SCSI so why are you insisting on comparing apples
to orange juice?

Quote:>> Ofcourse the performance of IDE vs. SCSI is not in this discussion,
>> and is not rellivant.

>Actually, it is 100% relevant as the component of the whole system.

Of course it's relevant to the system, but since Linux does support SCSI
how is it relevant to a comparison between HP/UX and Linux?

--
                                        N. Richard Caldwell
                                        Lucent Technologies

 
 
 

Why I choose HP-UX over Linux

Post by Gary Momariso » Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> > AFAIK Linux, from 2.1.something and 2.0.35 or something upwards have
> > software RAID 0,1,4 and 5 built-in the kernel (optional ofcourse).
> > So you can setup a RAID 1 mirrored array of disks even using IDE-disks.
> > As HP-UX and HP hardware are all SCSI, they are less cost-effective.

> How would I do that? Any web pages descrbine that? I don't have Linux but I
> would like to take a look anyway.

You can find info via the RAID page of Gary's Encyclopedia at

http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/raid.html

Start with the "Software RAID mini-HOWTO" and
"RAID Solutions for Linux" links.