Linux vs. Snow Leopard Server

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Server, Xserve, and Networking' started by c0l3a5h3r, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. macrumors member

    c0l3a5h3r

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    #1
    I'm currently running a LAMP setup on a office-based server for a database for my company. I need to get a new server to handle extra traffic and more space. Which is better for my needs: Linux (lets say red hat or fedora) or Snow Leopard Server?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    #2
    Linux, hands down.

    Unless you have a reason(namely supporting mac clients locally) for OS X server it's almost always better to go with Linux.
     
  3. macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #3
    That's a no-brainer: Linux. Not even Apple use their own server operating system, so why should anybody else?

    But what's even more important: Linux can be customized until Kingdom Come; it grants you total control over your environment and unlimited freedom. Life can be simpler with a proprietary product as long as the built-in functionality is all that you need, but your possibilities will always be restricted.

    Licensing costs and restrictive licensing terms are another issue, and both don't exist (to that extent) in Linux or FreeBSD land.
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    calderone

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    #4
    Linux. I use Ubuntu Server personally. Rock solid.
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    #5
    Linux all the way! (across the sky) *chuckles a lonely meme chuckle*
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    linux2mac

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Location:
    "City of Lakes", MN
    #6
    I just replaced my Dell PowerEdge SC1600 with a 2010 Mini Server (8GB RAM) and could not be more pleased. I am running a Snow Leopard Server host with Linux VM's and a Snow Leopard Server VM on Virtual Box.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Ace134blue

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #7
    Dont use fedora or redhat. Either use Ubuntu or Suse
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #9
    Not enough info. How big is the database, how much traffic do you get. What is your, (or whom ever will be administering it,) expertise? Is this mission critical or something that can be down for a while?
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island
    #10
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Linux. CentOS for me.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #11
    -First Point, your just flat-out wrong. Apple teams decided what they need, with a company preference toward Apple's equipment. Pretty much everything App Store is on OS X Server for example. Where as the MobileMe team has a large number of Solaris machines.

    -second point, Ridiculous for OP's purposes. RedHat is just as restrictive as OS X server. OP has no reason or need to recompile his kernel, which is about the only thing I can think of where RH has more "freedom." With any OS, the more you customize and change things the more problems your gonna have. For one, a single admin just isn't gonna keep up with all the security patches as well as Apple, RedHat, Debian, and Canonical.

    -third point, RedHat actually is more expensive then SLS, and worse terms. You only get patches and updates while under a support contract. No contract, no service/support/updates. You buy SLS once, you get updates/patches included for the life of the product. Now, pretty much any other Linux based OS doesn't have that restriction.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    nefan65

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    #12
    What are your needs? What's your level of experience as an admin/engineer? How many users? It's easy to say "Linux Hands Down" if you know it, understand it, and have experience in setting it up. If it's just a database server, with a Web front end, and you know how to do it, sure a Linux box is perfect. Its free, runs on anything, and like the others said updates are free.

    If you don't know how to do any of this, and looking for something easy to install, setup, manage, etc. then I'd go with SLS. It'a ll GUI, with basically wizards to set everything up. Again, you didn't say, but it also has all the authentication pieces using OpenDIR, Mail Server. iCal Server, Wiki, etc.

    Need some more info to better help...
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    #13
    Mac Mini Servers are very inexpensive for what you get.
    Unless you already know your way around Linux I would not go with a Linux server.

    If you're a n00b I vote for Mac Mini Server + Lynda.com to get you setup.

    If you know what you're doing you would not be asking the question and would already be using Linux.
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    Supa_Fly

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #14
    Then just how does SUSE, RedHat and others in this space make ANY cash? Oh server support ... for those limitless possibilities that go wrong when an admin is really not 100% sure what their doing or something breaks and needs to go back to the community to be fixed. I still agree with the majority here. SUSE may be your best choice.
     
  15. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #15
    Subscription; you pay a fee per year to be allowed to use the software, which also entitles you to get support and updates (within the same version), if you wan to upgrade from for example RHEL5 to RHEL6 or SLES10 to SLES11 then you need to pay a one time fee, on top of the subscription.

    But basic support is included in the fee...


    The big difference between SLES and RHEL is the RedHat allows you to down load the src.rpm's without having a subscription - which is what CentOS does.

    OpenSource is free, but the packaging is not.

    Casper
     

Share This Page