>>> Boss 10/22/01 09:38AM >>>
I have approved the RQ for the Sun E250. We need a hot-spare unit since we used it for ARCIMS.
I'm adjusting the number of Sun Blades down to two, one for the Websense box, and most likely the other also for a failover WebSense box.
I am leaning toward migrating DNS to dual Red Hat boxes.
As for the Sun Management console, it is unimportant in the scheme of things and can stay on an Ultra 10.
More later...
>>> Anti linux dude 10/22/2001 9:58:05 AM >>>
I have issues with that for these reasons.
One, DNS is a very critical part of our Web environment. If both of these servers go down, we have no name resolution for the internet since these are tied to DHCP and the InterNIC to provide resolution for hillsboroughcounty.org, hccsb.org, votehillsborough.org and other Internet domains. So essentially we would go completely down to both our internal and external users.
Two, using Solaris has been a part of our initial Technical architecture since the beginning. While we were slowly migrating to Linux for services that are not as critical as DNS, I feel very uncomfortable with using Linux because of an unproven track record in our environment.
Three, while the cost of ownership is higher, considering the critical nature of DNS, the over ROI is greater with Sun because they have proven themselves reliable in our environment and their support is as good as Redhat's with the added advantage of also supporting the hardware as well as the software.
Four, while it is attractive to have the "latest" versions of software, it is not practical if it does not suit the environment. Not everyone on the Internet uses the latest version and most do not know how to use the version latest "features". All-in-all, DNS sole purpose is to provide name resolution and we should make sure it does it in a reliable, secure fashion. While Sun's version of DNS is not the latest, they do offer support and provide timely patch updates to improve or make it more secure.
I do have issues with Linux because the OS has to be manipulated to fit its hardware environment which adds a layer of complexity. While Redhat claims to support practically everything. I doubt they will ever know everything that will come out for Linux.
Again. let me stress that I think Linux is a good OS, but there may be issues that may take more time to fix under Linux that under Sun because Sun is integrated (Hardware and Software) more throughly than Linux.
<<Boss>>
I don't agree Richard.
Let me address your four issues one by one.
First, If both of these servers go down... The same thing can be said for the current Sun systems. This is why there are two DNS servers, -the same whether they are on Sun or Linux.
Second, you say Linux doesn't have a track record in our environment... We've had successful installations with Linux for over one year. We also have 24x7 support through Red Hat.
Third, ROI... The cost of hardware is cheaper for Linux, and better than Sun in important ways. I prefer hardware RAID over Sun's software version. This helps to increase, not lower, the ROI.
Fourth, versions of DNS not the latest on Sun... My decision to use Linux is not based on the ability to run the latest version of DNS. This is immaterial to my decision.
Also, a note from me... The Linux boxes can be hot swapped, ghosted and restored (in under 10 minutes), and emergency-manipulated in ways that Sun does not allow (drives can be swapped to another box in minutes, RAM can be swapped, NICs can be swapped, etc.).
Sun has a place in our environment, and I don't foresee changing this stance in the future, but in this case I see Linux as the better choice.
bk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:41:57 EDT