On 26/12/2010 23:56, RayLopez99 wrote:
I was not under the impression that we were having a rational debate.
/I/ am debating rationally, /you/ are posting in defence of your
financial investment in MS :-)
Yes, Linux is superior for /my/ needs on servers. Those are objective
facts, based on my analysis of the needs of my company, and the options
available. As I have said many times before, I am happy to use windows
where it is the best choice - on servers, for my company, this is not
You can argue that windows is a better choice for most companies'
servers if you like. I'll disagree, but it is a fair argument.
But you /cannot/ argue about what is better for /my/ company - that is
/my/ decision based on /my/ analysis, and my conclusion is
overwhelmingly in favour of Linux.
That is a total non-sequitor. Have you never heard of the term
"efficiency"? Linux is more efficient for many server tasks, and can
make more out of fewer resources.
However, I will happily agree that more resources give more performance.
A windows file server with 512 MB and 1 GHz cpu will serve files
faster than a Linux server with 64 MB and 200 MHz cpu. My point is
merely that with 64 MB and 200 MHz cpu, the Linux box will serve files -
while (current version) windows will not install.
I realise you are not very familiar with servers, but "virtualisation"
is a technique that has been used for several decades to modularise and
contain server applications and resources without needing to have as
many physical servers.
It is possible to run multiple services on the same system. But
virtualisation makes it easier and more secure. Here's a few examples,
all of which are OS-independent:
You want to run different web sites with noticeably different options,
or even different web servers. Could run two web servers on the same
machine, with different non-standard settings for the port, for logs,
for configuration files, etc. Or you could run two standard setups in
two different virtual machines.
You want have two databases for two different departments at the office.
Each department has their own database administrator, and you want
them to have management rights to their own areas so that they don't
have to involve the IT department in everything. But they must be kept
separate and secure from each other. You can fiddle about with users,
groups, permissions, etc., until you have a setup that looks okay. Or
you can just give each department it's own virtual machine with it's own
dedicated database server and keep everything as smooth and simple as
You have a working server, and you want to test out a new version of
some important server software. You can take full backups, arrange for
some down-time for the server, install the new server, try it, then
restore the old system from the backup. Or you buy new server hardware,
hopefully close enough to the original, and install everything from
scratch (or from the backups) and test out the new software on new
hardware. Or you use virtual machines, clone the original to a test
virtual machine, and do your testing - all in a matter of minutes, and
all done via remote logins from your comfortable desk.
You have some software that works best on a 32-bit OS, others that works
best on a 64-bit OS. With virtualisation, you can have both.
You have some software that works best on one OS variant, others that
work best on a different variant.
You have a guide, tutorial, example, course, etc., showing how to
install or use a piece of software on a particular OS that is different
from the one you are using for other purposes on the server. You
probably /could/ get it to work on the "main" server OS, but it is just
easier and faster to get it working on the system described in the guide.
I could go on, or you could browse a little on the web.
I am confident that you have no idea what openvz is, and didn't try to
look it up on the web.
With openvz (or other "light-weight" virtualisation solutions that are
available for Linux), memory is not dedicated to the virtual machines.
If a particular machine is not using the physical ram, other virtual
machines can use it instead. The same applies to all resources.
The disk space used per virtual machine is perhaps 250 MB (depending on
the distribution, of course), excluding whatever virtual-machine
specific software and data you have. The processor overhead compared to
running "natively" is negligible (under 1%). This means that virtual
machines are effectively free. It takes me two or three minutes (this
is not an exaggeration) to set up a new "blank" openvz virtual machine
on our server. So if I want to install a new server application, or set
up a new internal web server, etc., why would I /not/ simply set up a
new dedicated virtual machine for the job?
If I were using windows, then I would agree with you - I would use
virtual servers, but far fewer. After all, each would need its own ram,
installation, setup, licensing, client-access-licenses, etc. The
overhead in time, money and hardware is very significant.
If I were using Linux with full-system virtualisation (such as VMWare,
Xen, KVM, VirtualBox, etc.) on the server, then I would partially agree
- each virtual machine may be free in cost, but takes time to install
and configure, and hardware resources to run. The resources would be
less than with windows - no need for any sort of virtualised screen, for
example. But they would still be significant.
I think you've got these mixed up.
It's odd to hear that as an argument /for/ windows...
> And again Windows is gaining.
Admission of illiteracy noted.
What, exactly, did you think we were discussing? Are you somehow under
the impression that I have been claiming Linux is the only system anyone
should ever use? I'll give you a hint - if you look at the headers in
the posts I have made, some are sent from a Windows machine at my work,
others from a Linux machine at home. I pick my software as the best
choice (to within my knowledge) for the job at hand, based on its
technical features, costs, the experiences and knowledge of the users,
etc. In my experience, that lands on Linux for server systems, and for
desktops and laptops it may be XP, Win7, Fedora, Mint, Ubuntu, or MacOS
depending on the circumstances.