Solaris Vs RedHat Linux

Hi,

Do we have any benefits from moving Soalris platform to RedHat Linux platform?

I mean cost benefits or performance benefits ?

thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Adam Stoller

Hi,

Do we have any benefits from moving Soalris platform to RedHat Linux platform?

I mean cost benefits or performance benefits ?

thanks

I'm not sure about performance benefits - the general cost benefits would be that Linux runs on PC hardware which tends to be less expensive than Sun Microsystems hardware which is needed for Solaris.

Beyond that, I don't think there are any benefits (from a TeamSite perspective).

mdang

TeamSite Performance on Linux blows TS on Solaris or TS on Windows away.

It makes me believe that this applies to most other enterprise software products.

Adam Stoller

TeamSite Performance on Linux blows TS on Solaris or TS on Windows away.

It makes me believe that this applies to most other enterprise software products.

Are you talking about two similarly decked out systems (number of CPU's, RAM, speed of CPUs) - or are you comparing apples and oranges?

I'm not saying it isn't possible that performance is improved, I'm just looking for a qualification on the response.

ISCBorisB

...I'm just looking for a qualification on the response.

mdang post is just Linux fan opinion, in the same spirit as this anecdotal evidence (only with the opposite champion).
Even now with OpenSolaris serious benchmarking with Linux is AFAIK utterly lacking (last formal one I saw was by Sun's
SAE Central, 2005, performed for heavy Transactional DB Load. It's not hard to guess this Document conclusion).

Here is a rare example of balanced (if somewhat biased) article that illustrates Enterprise Environment comparison issues: Solaris vs. Linux

mdang

Sorry, not a Linux fan. Smiley Happy

It is not an opinion. It is the test result, though I can only say this for TeamSite application.

It was a Apple to Orange comparison. I have to admit. You can't have the exact hardware that can host a Solaris and host a Linux, can you?

I said Linux blows Solaris away because I used a more powerful Solaris box than the Linux one, and still Linux won miles, performance and scalability.

We do have exact hardware for Linux and Windows (just swap the boot drive), and need not to say, Windows doesn't even see the smoke of Linux.

Again, I am not a Linux fan, maybe I will become one if I keep seeing this kind of result.

ISCBorisB

It is not an opinion. It is the test result

Has it been documented? Can you post technical methodics and the results? If the answer is "No" - it is nothing more than your opinion.
It's not that I do not trust you - I do. Please understand though that my Clients will laugh me out of the meeting room if
I recommend tens/hundreds thousand of dollars of investment on "mdang" say so.

You can't have the exact hardware that can host a Solaris and host a Linux, can you?

You can't have every platform host Solaris and Linux, true. With OpenSolaris however you can have
some platforms to host both. It will probably be neither trivial nor cheap but certainly possible.

Again, I am not a Linux fan, maybe I will become one if I keep seeing this kind of result.

I know it's not supported but still... Out of curiosity, have you (IWOV) ever tried FreeBSD/OpenBSD? What was the
performance, informal as the answer may be?

mdang

I am just telling what I can here.
To me, it is not an opinion cause I tested it, extensively. Since you don't see the data and the test config, it is fair enough to say that it is my opinion.

The actual data is only official for internal use, so it will need to go through PM before exposing it. Maybe if enough customers request, PM will publicize the document.

But if you have comparable systems, it is easy to do a "simple" experiment. Do a un-paginated 1000 file list on the TS UI for both systems (Solaris/Linux). See how many percentage of response time you saved on Linux. That was one of many test cases we did.

I certainly didn't test every single version of Solaris and Linux. It would be great if you have FreeBSD/OpenBSD handy to give it a try. But of course, getting TS on it is not a trivial task.

Again, my tests only address TeamSite application. It may or may not apply to other enterprise applications.

Adam Stoller

Sorry, not a Linux fan.
It is not an opinion. It is the test result, though I can only say this for TeamSite application.

It was a Apple to Orange comparison. I have to admit. You can't have the exact hardware that can host a Solaris and host a Linux, can you?

I said Linux blows Solaris away because I used a more powerful Solaris box than the Linux one, and still Linux won miles, performance and scalability.

We do have exact hardware for Linux and Windows (just swap the boot drive), and need not to say, Windows doesn't even see the smoke of Linux.

Again, I am not a Linux fan, maybe I will become one if I keep seeing this kind of result.

Okay - can you at least provide the specs of the Solaris and Linux boxes you used (e.g.: RAM, CPU type, speed and number of them, disk space) - I've been at customer sites where they had Solaris boxes that didn't even meet the minimum specs in the Admin manual - and they wondered why they had bad performance.

It's an interesting bit of information (opinion or otherwise) regardless.

gzevin

You can't have every platform host Solaris and Linux, true. With OpenSolaris however you can have
some platforms to host both. It will probably be neither trivial nor cheap but certainly possible.

how would you think to do that? OpenSolaris is on Intel,. right? whereas TeamSite is on SPARC code....

my personal opinion is that yes, TeamSite on Linux is running really fast (when it's running, as based on my PAINFUL experience with it, it can crash a few times per day and choke up the UFVS file system). But again, this have not been compared with similarly specced Sun box.

mdang

Okay - can you at least provide the specs of the Solaris and Linux boxes you used (e.g.: RAM, CPU type, speed and number of them, disk space) - I've been at customer sites where they had Solaris boxes that didn't even meet the minimum specs in the Admin manual - and they wondered why they had bad performance.

It's an interesting bit of information (opinion or otherwise) regardless.

Ok, I guess it is ok to leak the hardware specs. Smiley Happy

From best to worst performance:

1. Linux 2.6
Intel, 2.7 GHz x 2, Memory 4 GB, Disk 20GB

2. Solaris 10
Sparc, 1000 MHz x 8, Memory 16 GB, Disk plenty (T1000)

3. Solaris 8
Sparc, 900 MHz x 4, Memory 8 GB, Disk Plenty (SunFire 880)

4. Solaris 9
Sparc, 900 MHz x 2, Memory 4 GB, Disk Plenty (SunFire 280)

5. Windows 2002
Exact same box as #1 except swapped with a 80GB disk.

6. Windows 2003
Exact same box as #1 except swapped with a 160GB disk.

7,8... VMs

ISCBorisB

how would you think to do that? OpenSolaris is on Intel,. right? whereas TeamSite is on SPARC code...

Good point! I was thinking more in the line of the "Same Benchmarking Hardware", eg OpenSolaris
and RedHat/Ubuntu/Whatever on the identical WINTEL boxes. You are correct, we probably would not be able
to install Solaris TS on OpenSolaris Smiley Sad

ISCBorisB

Ok, I guess it is ok to leak the hardware specs. From best to worst performance:

1. Linux 2.6
Intel, 2.7 GHz x 2, Memory 4 GB, Disk 20GB

2. Solaris 10
Sparc, 1000 MHz x 8, Memory 16 GB, Disk plenty (T1000)

3. Solaris 8
Sparc, 900 MHz x 4, Memory 8 GB, Disk Plenty (SunFire 880)

4. Solaris 9
Sparc, 900 MHz x 2, Memory 4 GB, Disk Plenty (SunFire 280)

5. Windows 2002
Exact same box as #1 except swapped with a 80GB disk.

6. Windows 2003
Exact same box as #1 except swapped with a 160GB disk.

7,8... VMs

Good info! Thanks.

mdang

Correction:
5. Windows 2002
should read
5. Windows 2000

jed

For what its worth...

2. Solaris 10
Sparc, 1000 MHz x 8, Memory 16 GB, Disk plenty (T1000)

The Niagara chips (t1000/t2000/etc) are better for high throughput workloads that do not need fast single-thread performance. (Think webserver) All the benchmarking I did on these boxes was dismal since TeamSite tends to single thread many operations (on my workload at least). This is not an ideal box for TeamSite and any modern day intel/amd box should outperform them (for TeamSite stuff).

We just deployed an M5000. It is ****-expensive and a huge inprovement over our old server (Sun Fire 4810). These boxes will rival intel/amd speed, but they will lose out on a price/performance perspective. (64GB RAM/32 processing threads)

In my perfect work, TeamSite would run on Solaris X86 and I would deploy on a Sun Fire x4450. But Interwoven is reluctant to port TeamSite to x86 Solaris. So fooey.

If I had a choice between solaris x86 and linux x86, I would choose solaris but I drink the Sun Kool Aid. My recommendation is to deploy on the box which is easiest to deploy and maintain from an operational perspective. If you have solaris sysadmins, deploy on Solaris. If you have linux sysadmins, deploy on linux. The "fastest" performance is a nice to have, but at the end of the day, you need to run on a supportable and maintainable system.

Side note: ZFS is probably one of the biggest differentials between linux and solaris. I am a huge fan of ZFS and it makes things a lot easier when dealing with TeamSite backing stores. For example, we can use a cheap JBOD array to keep costs down and use zfs snapshots for backups.

3. Solaris 8
Sparc, 900 MHz x 4, Memory 8 GB, Disk Plenty (SunFire 880)

4. Solaris 9
Sparc, 900 MHz x 2, Memory 4 GB, Disk Plenty (SunFire 280)

2001 called. They want their servers back Smiley Happy

880: GA Date November 9, 2001
280: GA Date March 2001

ISCBorisB

These boxes will rival intel/amd speed, but they will lose out on a price/performance perspective

That's to put it mildly. You are talking 60-80K before all this silicon leaves boxes it is coming in,
other expenses included perhaps around 80-100K before it starts humming. Oh, well.. It's not the first time
I envy resources you are able to put into TS Environments

tonyarnold

What exactly is holding back IWOV from releasing an Solaris/OpenSolaris x86 build?

jed

What exactly is holding back IWOV from releasing an Solaris/OpenSolaris x86 build?

Same reasons as normal...
- customer demand
- QA resources
- they will do one or the other but not both (sparc vs. x86)
- yadda, yadda

Please file a FR if you are interested. One very compelling aspect of Solaris is that it is completely free with no limitations.
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp#download

nipper

What exactly is holding back IWOV from releasing an Solaris/OpenSolaris x86 build?

The development *should* be minimal but should is no guarantee. The filesystem development may require some more work.

The big issue is the QA that is needed to get a new product out the door. The amount of testing that is done per platform is quite significant.

Then there is the minor detail of how many people use Solaris on Intel ? As Jed stated, customer demand (or lack there of) will drive this.

Are there any stats re: Redhat vs Solaris in the marketplace ?