Can SLES9 be a viable server solution as an answer to using a Windows 2003 Server? Read the full article at Flexbeta.
Novell SLES9 vs Microsoft Win2k3 in a Windows Network
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
So much for Microsoft’s “Get The Facts” campaign!
Very well thought out article, and he is right, why use Windows Active Directory if your not going to take full advantage of it.
But, the author only compares the costs of the software. It IS a fact that there are less Linux admins than Windows admins. Sure, I’m sure Linux admins are more knowledgable, but the sure cost a hell of a lot more.Only time can heal this I guess.
Impressed by the differences in price and performance in favour of SLES.
The strength is that KDE designers or SUSE is going to improve their configuration after reading this review for a patch ready in some months, but a company like Microsoft will let you wait at least a couple of years.
If you want to read an absolutely SUPERB destruction of ‘Get The Facts’, then read this…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/
I currently maintain a w2k3 server with active directory. I havent’ seen a drop in replacement with Linux yet but I think Novell’s next server will manage the task nicely. Factor in iManager, Novell’s configuration software that you can manage EVERYTHING through a browser and things start looking even brighter.
The big thing here though is how much will you save once Novell drops in all their services since they’ll be charging per user licensing. That said I’m positive it will be cheaper.
Luk van den Borne:
You are correct the full time Linux administrators probably cost more than a full time Win32 administrator. However, at our company we have no admin for our SUSE server. One Senior Staff Engineer spends about 10% of his time administering the SUSE server and 90% of his time doing his job – C++ performance testing and improvement on AIX. I would rather go down the 10% route than hire a full time win32 admin!
but I realize that not all companies are in our position.
The performance of any Windows server at 30 clients or above should surprise no one. I think every admin should know about ‘the wall’ a Windows server has at this figure, and it is an absolute pain for growing SMEs, as it’s supposed to be
. Yet, idiots still buy Windows SBS and all the hidden costs it entails. Anyway, at least that means that we can still quote the price everyone thought they should be paying anyway, minus enough to undercut everyone else with a healthy profit 
. A Linux/Samba combination just keeps on going. When Novell put their software together with this I shudder to think what it will look like. As long as they keep the price down and market it well they can blow Windows out of the water.
I also know how difficult it is to get information on Client Access Licensing, so he gets brownie points for that. The response when you ask for such information is usually “give us a call” when you’re doing research, but what he has sounds about right. Now I’ve never seen a reference to Client Access licensing in those TCO studies…..
I think that it is a good article but has some lack.
– When you buy windows server, you can pay $999 and can use a “Per Seat License” and when you buy a Workstation PC on Intel it will comes with a Windows XP Professional License that you can use in your Network and you haven’t to buy a Client License for Windows.
– This SMB Test doesn’t reflect the real performance in production environments because it not has the real conditions that a production environment must have. Many productions environments have catalogs of users, profiles, Multiple Logon Servers, Load balancing, and so. To evaluate a system you must recreate all of this.
– On a Single Server maybe SuSe be fastest than Windows, but we must see the conjunction of server and clients not only a Server. Active Directory, Group Policy Objects, Windows Management Interface, Windows SharePoint Services, Exchange Server exists too and in this paper I don’t see anything mentioning it.
Technically speaking, SuSe is fastest than Windows, but if we analyze other aspects like Benefits?
An Enterprise needs support for Document Control, User Communication, Team Works, Schedules and many other Administrative (for Businessmen) Tasks.
Windows Server offers SharePoint Team Services (Its Free) and with it you can create a Web Site and Control all the documents of the Company, Schedules, Tasks, Discussion Groups and So. Windows has Exchange Server too, has a free version of SQL Server called MSDE (Microsoft Data Engine).
I think that this article is biased towards SuSe, because it not talks about others features that Windows have.
On this article nobody talks about the benefits that each OS brings to us.
“I havent even read the article but with a title like this I know without a doubt…” — Roberto J. Dohnert
Wow! Absolute certainty untroubled by any pesky evidence. This is the finest example of zealotry that I’ve seen in some time.
I thought that the author did a good job showing strengths and weaknesses in both products. True, the more concrete data (fileserver performance and license cost) favored Linux, but the author did indicate that Microsoft has a stronger directory service offering. Given Novell’s history with directory services, it should be interesting to see what they do with future releases. It’s nice to see both Windows and Linux improving. Competition is great.
So far Microsoft has refused to include native, out of box NFS support in Windows even though this is a standard in the *NIX world. If you use CIFS/SMBFS thats not a negative point. Don’t start about SFU; 1) Its not native nor default installed 2) It s performance sucks and its hard to configure. Its at least something though.
This SMB Test doesn’t reflect the real performance in production environments because it not has the real conditions that a production environment must have. Many productions environments have catalogs of users, profiles, Multiple Logon Servers, Load balancing, and so.
Please don’t skirt the issue as Microsoft does by saying “Oh, but you haven’t taken into account x, y and z.” In a Small Medium Business/Departmental set up, who uses Load Balancing and all the features you can muster? No one. This is a very realistic everyday set up and Windows is not up to the job, and what on Earth makes you think that Windows would be better at any of this stuff if it cannot do the basic stuff acceptably?
but we must see the conjunction of server and clients not only a Server. Active Directory, Group Policy Objects, Windows Management Interface, Windows SharePoint Services, Exchange Server exists too and in this paper I don’t see anything mentioning it.
The article does touch on the management interfaces, but this is a realistic set up of what people use a server for. Who the hell uses Sharepoint Services? Exchange would be worthy of an article all by itself. The performance of that thing is crap as well.
Technically speaking, SuSe is fastest than Windows, but if we analyze other aspects like Benefits?
What, you mean like performing better and being far cheaper? No, I don’t think that’s a benefit either
.
I think that this article is biased towards SuSe, because it not talks about others features that Windows have.
Oh, boo hoo – it’s biased. Read the scenario and what kind of environment the servers are being run in. Whatever extra features Windows has they aren’t necessary and the performance certainly isn’t going to be any better.
On this article nobody talks about the benefits that each OS brings to us.
I think faster and cheaper with good management interfaces covers about > 90% of what people are looking for.
You miss the point. The evidence that Roberto lacks is not about Linux or Windows. It’s evidence about the article.
Roberto stated that he had not read the article. But he is certain that he knows what the author said. Roberto has an opinion about the article, but not having read it, that opinion is not based on evidence.
A zealot knows that his position is the only correct one. Agreement with that position is essential. Analysis of evidence is secondary; faith perhaps serves better, by not raising disturbing doubts.
Zealots can be found supporting any position. There are Linux zealots, BSD zealots, Windows zealots, and Mac zealots. But they all share one thing: disagreement with the official position is seen as an attack, and always leads to counterattack. Not discussion, not explanation, not refinement of position. Zealotry is emotional, not rational. It’s social, people banding together in a group, reinforcing the dogma. Anyone who even questions that dogma is outside of the group, and is seen as a threat.
No its not anecdotal. Part of it is his analysis of the offerings and the performace part is somewhat scientific. He presents us with his test setup and then runs the benchmarks, even noting driver issues etc.
“When you buy windows server, you can pay $999 and can use a “Per Seat License” and when you buy a Workstation PC on Intel it will comes with a Windows XP Professional License that you can use in your Network and you haven’t to buy a Client License for Windows.”
This is simply false, WinXP DOES NOT come with a license to use with a Windows Server. The argument for CALs is that they allow smaller networks to purchase high end servers at a reduced price – i.e. the more computers you have the higher the cost. You thinking that a WinXP license constitutes a CAL license is not only fictitious, but could be very costly in legal fees if you ever manage a network.
“we must see the conjunction of server and clients not only a Server. Active Directory, Group Policy Objects, Windows Management Interface, Windows SharePoint Services, Exchange Server exists too and in this paper I don’t see anything mentioning it.”
The article does cover Active Directory to some extent – Group Policy Objects can be implemented in a Samba Enviornment, etc. As for Sharepoint Services and Exchange Server these are add ons to Windows 2003 Server, and very expensive ones at that. The Sharepoint Services Server, for example, would cost $5,619 with only 5 CALs (and no a WinXP license doesn’t constitiute a Sharepoint CAL), including these add-ons would take the article on to a different subject matter.
Win2K3 base install includes Exchange etc?
Didnt think so, this was a base install of 2 OS’, why not a listing of what came with SELS9 and Win2K3 and what the cost is of adding the functionality to Win2K3?
Why does any discussion of TCO or ROI exclude what MS do *not* ship with their OS?
YAST is now OSS software, you could in theory download everything that Novell has released install and run. $349 (probably £350 over here) per year for support is dirt cheap and Novell are much better than they used to be regarding support though they had a very bad patch a few years ago.
As far as I know from my own experience, when you buy a lot of licences, you’re paying much less for each one – MS has a very flexible licensing and pricing and way better dealers, at least here in Russia. And when I approached several SuSE distributors earlier this year, when I was evaluating different ways to go, they couldn’t offer me better price, and, that’s simply anecdotal, when I asked for sles8 std, they kept sending me their quotes for an enterprise version, even after I wrote a ton of emails and phoned – when I called an ms distributor, I’ve got sencible quotes in 15 minutes, got an appoitment for negotiations, then got excellent pricing, actually I’ve bought even more stuff than initially expected, so wtf?
As far as I know from my own experience, when you buy a lot of licences, you’re paying much less for each one
Well yes possibly, but the material point is that Microsoft has got you paying for more licenses. Duhh…
MS has a very flexible licensing and pricing and way better dealers, at least here in Russia.
People pay Microsoft in Russia?
And when I approached several SuSE distributors earlier this year, when I was evaluating different ways to go, they couldn’t offer me better price
I suggest you read the article then. There’s nothing remotely close between $349 and several thousand dollars.
I called an ms distributor, I’ve got sencible quotes in 15 minutes, got an appoitment for negotiations, then got excellent pricing, actually I’ve bought even more stuff than initially expected, so wtf?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, crap.
People pay Microsoft in Russia?
Yes, at least larger organizations, is it that surprizing? I’ll disclose you another strategic secret – we also have HP ProLiant servers and Cisco network hardware – switches, routers.
And there’s no bears on the streets. Still unconvinced – well, come to check it out!
And I don’t give a sh@t if that wonderful SLES costs only $349, but I can’t get it – or maybe I should fly to Germany to buy directly from SuSE? No? If they don’t have a good network of distributors, no matter how good or cheap (in theory) their product – I can’t and won’t buy it anyway, for such a “support” and “pre-sales” I can download something free, like WhiteBox.
I’ll disclose you another strategic secret – we also have HP ProLiant servers and Cisco network hardware – switches, routers.
Well I’d hardly call it a strategic secret.
And I don’t give a sh@t if that wonderful SLES costs only $349, but I can’t get it
I thought you said that you’d talked to several Suse distributors that couldn’t give you a better price than Microsoft?
I can’t and won’t buy it anyway, for such a “support” and “pre-sales” I can download something free, like WhiteBox.
I thought Microsoft gave you such brilliant prices though
.
O.K. Let’s see – I wanted to buy subscription for 7 SLES 8 Std, started to call/mail the distributors – there was 8 or 9 of them at that time (jan/feb’04) – only one of them all managed to remember what version we need, others couldn’t understand, then I got a quote from some of them – about a half didn’t reply at all, one reacted the next day, other 3 or 4 during one to two weeks! Then I explained ’em that we’re a non-profit org and most probably subject to special pricing, after that only one replied in a week, just to tell me that they can’t sell us at a special price – ok, I called several MS distributors – got their quotes, meet ’em, got a special pricing – all in a matter of minutes and hours, not weeks, then got the soft, and, i must say for a dirt cheap as it turned out that the public libraries subject to very low prices, obviously I continued to work with ’em and, since we’re a big centralized system of public libraries, got a lot of server/workstation soft, exchange, office and some other stuff. And going to continue in the future. Could those money (not too small money because of large quantity of software) go to SuSE – yes, if they had good marketing and distribution.
And regarding to free community versions of linux – well, i regularly checking it out – just because of curiosity, actually I started to play with linux about 1999, but I wouldn’t rely on not supported software for my work – in case if something goes wrong i’m on my own, searching the —- web and forums, no it doesn’t works for me.
I have unlimited latitude on choosing my email server which is Exchange now. However, I have Blackberry Enterprise Server and Avaya IP office tied into and authenticating with Active Directory. I THINK I could run those 2 apps on a seperate Windows box and authenticate them via LDAP/Samba3. Any ideas? Anyone else been down this path?
It’s a ridiculous comparison because they are omitting one very important fact here. The windows 2003 server exports ACLs on every single shared file to the client. SAMBA servers don’t export ACLs. All the samba server does when you are browsing or copying or what ever, is show you a list of the files and directories on that share. The windows 2003 server not only shows you a list of the files and directories on that share, it shows exports the ACLs for every file and directory on that share to the client. As you can imagine, there is a hell of a lot more overhead involved in doing that. The fact that the numbers are as close as they are is more than evidence of the fact that in reality, Windows file share performance exceeds SAMBA performance.
Besides, if you use just about any other windows server product like SQL server or Exchange or ISA server or whatever, they all either need active directory, or really take advantage of active directory. Using a Linux server for file sharing to windows clients usually only adds a layer of complication to such a scenario.
The fact that the numbers are as close as they are is more than evidence of the fact that in reality, Windows file share performance exceeds SAMBA performance.
You consider DOUBLING the performance “close” ??
Besides, if you use just about any other windows server product like SQL server or Exchange or ISA server or whatever, they all either need active directory, or really take advantage of active directory
The article does mention quite a bit about compatibility – especially the fact that MS Servers do not interoperate well with anything but MS Servers. This is one of the reasons why so many people are looking to get rid of MS Servers. Today people are starting to want a choice, if you use Microsoft Servers, you are denied that choice.
A great quote from the article:
On the flip side, Microsoft Servers do not interact very well with other vendor’s servers. An example: If you are going to use Active Directory, Exchange Server, or most of the other servers Microsoft provides, do not even think about using anything but a Microsoft DNS server. This is why I really got a kick out of Novell’s Ad – “Random Access: Freedom to choose SUSE Linux or any other software you damn well please.” – It kind of hits the nail on the head.
It’s a ridiculous comparison because they are omitting one very important fact here. The windows 2003 server exports ACLs on every single shared file to the client. SAMBA servers don’t export ACLs. All the samba server does when you are browsing or copying or what ever, is show you a list of the files and directories on that share.
Samba has native ACL support, and you can set them and manipulate them from Windows in exactly the same way.
This is just plain wrong (and desparate), and even if it wasn’t it still doesn’t explain why Samba performs so much better than Windows.
News just in: Black is not White.