|
|
|
|
|
|
by splaff
4266 days ago
|
|
|
As a long time lurker, I'm going to jump on this one. Yes it is bold by the user but I agree entirely. I spent the best part of a decade running Solaris and Linux machines from 1998-2008. The Solaris kit was easy to keep running once you'd got over the initial configuration hell and was very stable. The Linux stuff however was nasty at best. From CIFS/SMB crashes taking out the VFS layer to drivers packing in to incorrect documentation to random hangups. That is across CentOS and Debian. They are not even remotely stable IMHO. Debian is far better than CentOS was but that still pales in comparison to even, dare I say it, Windows Server 2008. As a sideline, I'd been using OpenBSD on a couple of test machines because it was interesting and I encountered entirely the opposite of the above. I threw it into production instead of a CentOS 5 box that we were retiring as a postfix/dovecot SMTP/IMAP box. The throughput is about 10-15%[1] less but my word the thing is a million times easier to administer and is absolutely bomb proof. Every configuration option, tool etc is entirely and perfectly documented. It is nothing but bliss. It just keeps ticking. We now have 3 hosts on it. The only missing bit is a decent OpenJDK port but the software guys are starting to use Python for a lot of stuff so that may be moot shortly anyway. My metric for an operating system's reliability is if it goes wrong, how much crap do I have to deal with? Well I'm confident that if an OpenBSD host went down that I could have it back up, even if the internet connection was out and all I had was an OpenBSD CD. I can't say the same about anything else these days. Last time I lose an md raid on Linux, it took me a day to get it back due to nothing but crappy documentation and bugs even those it was a tested recovery strategy. [1] The thing is a hefty HP Xeon box so this is background noise compared to the actual load. |
|
|