Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh
Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
I would assume it is because of the cost.
Most large-scale and small-scale web hosting are looking to drive costs down, so are more willing to choose an OS that carries the least cost overhead.
Why buy support for 1000 servers when each are identically configured?
Why not just buy support for 10 web-development/testing servers that mirror the production servers and if an OS problem creeps up it should be reproducable on the supported development/testing environment which can then utilize the commercial support?
Cost is the first place I would look.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
For me it doesn't have to do with cost. It has to do with I've used RedHat Linux since 1995, then RHEL, then CentOS. And all this time I've used some form of RedHat or derivative on all my servers. I prefer to stick with what I know.
Also, you'll notice that the majority of pre-packed Control Panel software is written for RPM based distro's.
And if you're looking for webhosting, go to www.cyberbite.com
-matt
On 9/6/07, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
From: "Karanbir Singh" mail-lists@karan.org
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
For me that was the bad choice of the FC family. The biggest part, CentOS has a bigger life time then the crappy FC (6 months).
Danny.
On 9/6/07, D.Terweij | NTG-Support d.terweij@nettuning.net wrote:
From: "Karanbir Singh" mail-lists@karan.org
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
For me that was the bad choice of the FC family. The biggest part, CentOS has a bigger life time then the crappy FC (6 months).
Danny.
The relationship between FC and Upstream is more complex than that. It is not fair to call FC "crappy", because the projects have different goals. The goal of an enterprise OS (Upstream, CentOS) is long term support and a very stable system. The goal of something like FC is to have more frequent updates, and provide more cutting-edge packages, more aimed at desktop use. FC is actually a testing ground for the Upstream Enterprise releases.
Make sure you take those things into account when you form your opinions and understanding about a product.
From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of D.Terweij | NTG-Support
From: "Karanbir Singh" mail-lists@karan.org
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting
business these days,
and even for people who would normally have used Windows or
OSX on the
hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I
thought it
would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly
why that is.
For me that was the bad choice of the FC family. The biggest part, CentOS has a bigger life time then the crappy FC (6 months).
Yes, but why did you not buy RHEL or SUSE Enterprise?
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
CentOS is doing well in the webhosting business for the same reason "the upstream provider" is doing well in the enterprise data center. Webhosting companies have recognized the low TCO CentOS brings to the table, as well as it's binary compatibility with RHEL and the benefits that come with. Having an enterprise Linux distro as your hosting platform gives you confidence and piece of mind with regards to security and errata fixes for the better part of a decade. I no longer have to reinstall Fedora every 6 months to keep my servers (and clients) secure. An Enterprise distro also brings stability and ease of maintenance to the table.
The popularity of RHEL in the corporate world makes CentOS a no-brainer in the dedicated server market, which tends to be more price-conscious and volatile. This market also tends to cater to the advanced linux user, whether that be a linux professional or serious hobbyist.
With the advent of CentOS 5.x, a VPS can benefit from all the points I've already made, again making CentOS a perfect candidate in the VPS market with no [or little] customization.
Webhosting companies are businesses. TCO is a prime concern and consideration which makes enterprise distributions attractive. A proven *free* enterprise distro is obviously a perfect fit.
Regards, Kenneth Price
Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
As a web host, I'm gearing all 'soon-to-be-launched' systems to CentOS for many reasons. The first was mentioned in this thread: most CP applications for hosting are based around RPM-friendly distros. The second is actually /most/ important to me and it isn't cost. It's this list and the CentOS community. The community support for CentOS is as good /if not better/ than that of Upstream or any other OS's I've used over the past 10 years.
The distro is solid, has longevity and is robust. Sounds like a win-win to me and that's why we are migrating *all* of our systems to CentOS.
~Ray
*tongue in cheek: for additional comments in the typical US$0.02 intervals, feel free to contact me*
Ray Leventhal schrieb am 06.09.2007 17:08:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
As a web host, I'm gearing all 'soon-to-be-launched' systems to CentOS for many reasons. The first was mentioned in this thread: most CP applications for hosting are based around RPM-friendly distros. The second is actually /most/ important to me and it isn't cost. It's this list and the CentOS community. The community support for CentOS is as good /if not better/ than that of Upstream or any other OS's I've used over the past 10 years.
The distro is solid, has longevity and is robust. Sounds like a win-win to me and that's why we are migrating *all* of our systems to CentOS.
That's my opinion, too.
I never saw a project that had this quality of support on their mailinglists/forums. Even if you ask a not so CentOS-related question you get often real good anwsers or hints.
I think the main reasons for CentOS are: - it's really cheap, because it's for free ;-) - it's a enterprise grade distri, which means it's robust, well tested, stable and you get updates for a quite long period - the community is friendly and helpful, for beginners same as for pros
That's my 2 cents ;-)
Greetings René
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi,
CentOS seems to be doing really well in the hosting business these days, and even for people who would normally have used Windows or OSX on the hosting previously, are now looking at using CentOS. And I thought it would be nice to have a section on the wiki about exactly why that is.
Not having any direct connection with the hosting business I was wondering if people here could help me out a bit and let me know why they think CentOS is good / bad as a platform in this market segment.
I suppose that would include dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, Shared / Virtual hosting, and even high performance grid hosting that a few people seem to be offering these days.
Once we have some material here in this thread, everything will go online at the wiki ( with due credit to all contributors ).
For us the bottom line was we have been a RedHat shop since the release of 5.2. The proven reliability of packages and updates have made our lives better. Only rarely over this time has anything broken due to an update. All through this time, every package needed to run a quality webserver has been available, allowing us to stay within the upstream's packages. Keeping up with security updates has been a breeze.
Adding in quality repositories, such as Dag's has also been pretty darned reliable and given us almost everything else we wanted to complete our basic systems.
In a nutshell, very few surprises therefore reliability and quality of service.
Yes, we have lived with older systems, like the slow migration to new versions of mysql for instance. But the tradeoff has kept us away from bleeding edge.... and I hate 'bleeding' over a busted web service.
So much is interrelated, mail systems, libraries, and on and on... Something can literally be broken for some time before someone makes you aware of it. I do remember one upgrade to mysql years ago which broke any ability to access it via a client side application. Who tests this sort of thing while doing upgrades/updates? Well, generally RedHat does a pretty darned good job of it, but they did mess up this one security release which was rolled out pretty quickly. What I'm getting at is a sysadmin really cannot test every possible way each bit of web related software is going to be used. It takes a bigger community.
As for CentOS. We did hold subscriptions with Redhat for our systems up until the time the rates increased. Their model was better suited to the corporate world, where one very fast very expensive server takes care of the enterprise. Licensing in that situation is cheap. For us, webservers don't need to be all that fast and we get a lot of mileage out of them. For instance, we have three older machines which are run almost purely as nameservers. Hard to justify the licensing for those. Heck, one license cost more than what one of those servers is worth these days.
We do find that splitting out some services across servers while combining some services on some servers is a good business model for us. The downside is we run a lot of servers. Licensing was going to cost somewhere between 10 and 20% of our gross. Hosting is a fairly competitive market. To best compete with other providers we needed a different solution. Other quality solutions exist such as Debian and we were about to go that route when Whitebox arrived. Shortly after the more active CentOS community came to life. I've been extremely happy with the decision to go with CentOS for almost all of our production systems. We do also run some Debian boxes, particularly due to its cleaner interaction with various java products.
We have never given more than just a thought from time to time about a Windows based server. Yes there are tempting features, but you all know the advantages to a 'nix based system.
This would also be a good time for me to again sincerely thank everyone involved with CentOS. A special thanks to the maintainers, but also a thanks to all of those on this list. Cumulatively we have made a more robust end product for the upstream all the way down to better systems for all of us running CentOS. It truly is a 'C'ommunity 'ent'erprise 'O'perating 'S'ystem!
I do wish there were more varied mailing list for CentOS. The general list is great but is fairly busy. I have often times thought that a CentOS hosting/webserver mailing list could be a great asset to those of us in this particular facet of operation. It would allow for more discussion of spam filtering, mailservers, bind, admin interfaces, backups, etc. Items that could so easily take over the general discussion list, which is not really the place for it. I do commend the creation of the mailing list for virtualization, as I'm sure that will become a hot topic.
Best, John Hinton http://ew3d.com EW3D/SuperStatZ
-
Brian Mathis -
D.Terweij | NTG-Support -
John Hinton -
Karanbir Singh -
Ken Price -
Matt Shields -
Ray Leventhal -
René Standfest -
Ross S. W. Walker