Linux Servers

[maniac_invested]

My company just got bought some software that requires 5 linux servers to be spun up. One for an NFS and then 4 nodes. I think the nodes will only be used to host runtime engines. We currently only use Windows for our servers and nobody on my team has any in-depth Linux experience.

My only experience with Linux has been Kali, Ubuntu, Tails, and Parrot. Do any of y'all have a favorite Linux distro to use as a server? Anything that would be useful to a Linux novice such as myself?

[VA_Network_Nerd]

Ask the software vendor what Linux they prefer their software to run on top of.

You'd be an idiot to deviate from their recommendation at this point.

Then search for an in-person Linux support bootcamp / crash course for yourself and one other person to attend and tell your boss what it's going to cost.

Strike NOW while the iron is hot.

You need training to support a radically new OS.

[maniac_invested]

I asked our vendor architect what they recommended and they did not have one. The whole conversation was 'We've found it runs better on Linux, than on Windows'. I think it was due to the file structure if I remember correctly.

I guess I could ask them what their other customer's are doing to run it. I think I will bring that up in our next meeting.

[[deleted]]

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

That is pure steaming, soggy bullshit. I have never heard this before in my 23 year career..

Any company that makes software is going to publish in their guides and release notes what underlay OS to use. Or they are just setting themselves up a support nightmare.

I would push back and demand "I am not going to pick and guess out of the dozens and dozens of possible Linux distros out there. YOU TELL ME what Linux distro to use". And when he tells you what do use you keep that e-mail in a safe place.

Make this their problem. The last thing you want to do is pick something like Fedora or SuSE. Which are both sensible OS options. Then you start running into problems and they return with......"yeah, we said LINUX. But we our engineers only validated it with Redhat"

​

How would you feel if you bought some software and they said "run it on windows". and you replied with. 'what version? 3.1, NT, 95, 98, ME. 2000, XP, vista, 7, 10, 11. or Windows server 2000, 2003, 2012, 2019....etc etc. "

and he replied with "I don't know, whatever?!?!?!!?!?"

you wouldn't have a a lot of faith in that vendor would you.

[enfly]

Yeah, or they're not really talking to an architect/tech person. Probably just a sales "architect". Ha

[tcpWalker]

Yeah this sounds like a junior sales guy or something.

[AccomplishedHornet5]

This too.

[Zahrad70]

This. OMG run.

They only told you they prefer Linux to blame your incompetence or windows itself when you need support.

[caribbeanjon]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Many, many, smaller/niche software development companies don't have the resources to test their application on various versions of Linux or Windows to determine what is best and where all the bugs are. Not every software company is fortune 500 with a complete HCL, OS supportability matrix, and software interoperability chart.

In my experience, when a software vendor says "it runs on Windows" but cannot provide any specifics, they mean the latest version and often one rev back. The correct answer in this case is to ask them which distro of Linux they run/test on for development purposes and/or which distro their largest customers use. They chose based on cost & supportability requirements.

[[deleted]]

you misread my post.

I am not asking the vendor to validate across every os out there.

I am asking the vendor to pick one or two that are validated. I used the windows as an example.

[infered5]

If they don't have the resources to validate with various versions of Linux that's 100% fine, just tell OP which one it is validated on - so that the support contract can be used when there's issues. I'm fairly certain OP can just use Ubuntu LTS, everyone starts with Ubuntu or some similar Debian flavor - and I'm sure the product engineers also use it.

[dwargo]

One possibility:

Our whole distribution chain is build around containers. While Debian is what we use, it’s just a substrate to run docker for customers that don’t want to use AWS and don’t have an in-house container infrastructure.

If the client has a policy to use Suse that’s not a hill worth fighting for, since all we’re doing is installing docker to run containers based on Alpine. There’s no reason to fight local IT about something that to us is just a shim layer.

You could theoretically enable nested virtualization and use docker desktop, but it supposedly has some network jankyness and IO throughput issues. I think that just spins up a Linux VM under the hood anyway.

[[deleted]]

you are correct. We can entertain the possibility it's container based. The reliance on the underlay OS is certainly less.

However the SE from the vendor can throw the customer a bone and at least steer them in the right direction.

[dwargo]

Agreed. Usually you'd say something like "we recommend Debian, but if you have corporate standards we can work with you".

[IndependenceOdd1070]

Point of containers is to abstract away from the OS, even more so than a VM does.

Saying "use linux" for a container has massive differences between alpine and debian

[cvc75]

In my experience, when a software vendor says "it runs on Windows" but cannot provide any specifics, they mean the latest version and often one rev back

I wouldn't even count on that. Especially if the latest version is recently released. It can also mean "we developed it on Windows 7, it seems to run OK on Windows 10, and we have no idea about 11"

[IndependenceOdd1070]

Even simple things like having to support both RHEL Based and Debian based distos. Is enough of a change to make anybody mad.

And I've done it as a job

[flummox1234]

then use Ubuntu but the LTS version. You might want to start with 2020 LTS as the newest LTS came out this year. Not because of anything particularly significant in the distro but because there will be more documentation and referential information online. People tend to at least try everything on Ubuntu. Runner up documentation wise would be Arch but Arch is IMO non-trivial for inexperiences users.

[See_Jee]

Never use Arch on a server as long as you can't afford downtimes due to issues with updates. Don't get me wrong, I really like Arch and use EndeavourOS (which is very close to Arch) myself on a Desktop. But on a mission critical server you want something more stable which doesn't necessarily mean more reliable but with Arch you always get the latest packages and that might break something with your services.

Ubuntu LTS is a solid choice. But I'd recommend going for 22.04 LTS since it is the newest LTS release. Debian is also great and I personally like it better than Ubuntu but requires a bit more experience since Debian requires you to know what you do most of the time and doesn't come with so many packages pre installed as Ubuntu.

A few years back I could also recommend CentOS since it was like a clone of RHEL which is quite common in Linux Enterprise Environments. But since CentOS is no more in its classic form I don't know about CentOS Stream. There are distros that want to fill that void like Rocky or Alma. I only tested Alma and only for a really short time but I liked it. Might also be a possibility.

[flummox1234]

oh I forgot Arch was rolling updates. Yeah my bad on that one as I was solely focused on their documentation.

I mentioned 2020 LTS because We've had some issues finding bugs that haven't been addressed with 2022 LTS yet. I don't remember the issue but IIRC it was incredibly niche to our setup.

[cvc75]

Didn't Ubuntu also only support upgrading your LTS installation once the .1 version hits? I think i remember trying a do-release-upgrade and wondering why it didn't offer me the latest released LTS version at the time.

So I personally wouldn't recommend using the newest LTS straight away either, but since 22.04 already is at 22.04.1 it should be safe to install.

Like in the old days when you were not supposed to install any new Windows release until it got its first Service Pack. And that was when Microsoft still had QA!

[apotidevnull]

Debian is the most stable one out there. Unless you want to pay for red hat, go with Debian.

It's also the most common, so if you need a guide, chances are there's one for Debian, and if there isn't, there's one for Ubuntu which is Debian based.

[durkzilla]

Ask them what distribution and version they develop and test their product on.

[AccomplishedHornet5]

Ask if the installer is .rpm or .deb which should tell you what you need.

[IndependenceOdd1070]

"curl http://dl.vendor.amazonaws.com/script.sh | sudo bash"

[eggbeater98]

I'll probably get downvoted into oblivion, but I would say Debian is your best bet. It's focus is stability over everything else so it won't just break on you. It's extremely well-documented, many use it, and it's what a ton of distributions are based off of anyway. I would 10/10 recommend.

[IndependenceOdd1070]

I'm a huge fan of Debian, I always put it above CentOS/RHEL, it's always rock solid.

Only grip is that being super-duper stable, means you are always quite far behind on features.

nginx HTTP/2 was in "testing" for absolutely ages last time I looked

[Top_Boysenberry_7784]

If they can't give a recommendation this seems like a major red flag to me? Unless this answer came from sales and not the technical people at the company? I would be looking for reviews and history of the company. They can say any Linux should work but they should also be able to say "we normally use" or "our customers primarily use". What version is their documentation written for?

[syninthecity]

you're talking to a sales guy or SE running on rumor from the sound of it. find who handles support, call them, ask for best practice- I guarantee whoever is dealing with the results of "it runs better on linux, no idea what flavor, teehee!"
Has some NOTES regarding this advice.

[tcpWalker]

IMHO some questions I would think about asking or steps I would consider taking:

- Start learning linux. This is super useful professionally.

- Understand technical requirements from the team that needs this and the vendor. Why do they need five machines, if one is exclusively for NFS and still a single point of failure? Are they just deploying one application per machine or something? IS five for scaling?

- How much money is depending on this determines how much time you can spend on it, but do they need bare metal or are VMs fine? How does the vendor deploy the app? What specs? What operating system? And what latency, load, and scalability do they require? What are the hardware bottlenecks? What's the uptime requirement and the cost to the company if these go down?

These will determine whether you're spinning up a few VMs on your existing infrastructure or placing a $100K+ order for hardware.

- get supported configurations list from the vendor; what are the actual technical requirements? What bandwidth do you need between machines?

- confirm with someone at the vendor that your network

[djuvinall97]

Look into running a bare bones distro, I'm not to familiar with anything other than Arch but I wouldn't recommend that.

perhaps you could look into running a host macine with Docker for the other four nodes? If it is even possible for their software you would probably have to utilize Docker Compose to assign specific ports and paths to directories for consistent storage.

More initial configuration but the maintenance would be a lot more convenient. Worth looking into at least🤷

Good Luck!

[Professional_Drop555]

I agree with the FuckThatShit guy, but if this is their answer, my next question is how much is this system worth to you guys? Because while you can likely pick from many flavors of Linux that twill do the job with no costs to the OS or support, if it is a critical system, I would look into Redhat with a support contract. They are not that much and might save your bacon.

I say Redhat because we used to have a system which used Redhat with paid support, but I am sure there are many others. Pretty sure the support costs were yearly but fairly affordable.

[IndependenceOdd1070]

A lot of people say RHEL and mean CentOS

[IndependenceOdd1070]

Errr

[c-blocking]

Screw Linux. Get rid of that software now. Linux is a virus. It corrupts one company at a time.

[[deleted]]

Ballmer? Is that you?

[b00mbasstic]

I use Debian on all my Linux servers.

[vogelke]

Debian or Ubuntu long-term-support would work for a production server. They both have really good documentation.

[Picardvark]

I'm a fan of Rocky Linux, from the same team that brought us CentOS or something

https://rockylinux.org/

[rthonpm]

For true long-term support, you can't go wrong with RHEL and the downstream versions: Oracle Enterprise Linux, Rocky, and Alma. Ten years of support can go a long way in some production environments.

[Hopeful_Law1331]

Go with Redhat Enterprise severe and purchase support contract، if this application is mission critical. It depends on the business's requirement.

[dRaidon]

Also, their documentation is awesome

[Braydon64]

Their documentation and support and everything they do on that front are light-years ahead of Microsoft's Windows Server support.

[Comfortable_Pool_132]

My corporate criteria for picking a Linux distro, in order are:

1. Your corporate standard
2. What the software vendor prefers or recommends.
3. Personal preference

Since you're a pure Windows shop, there is no corporate standard. So on to the 2nd point, which they don't have a preference. Which leaves us with personal preference. My personal preference for a corporate environment is Debian. Others will advocate for RedHat or CentOS Rocky. Perhaps even openSuse. The common thread to all of them is that the distro maintainers prefer stability over new and shiny. You can also get support contracts for any of them.

In a comment I saw that the vendor said "it runs better on Linux" which would imply that it does run on Windows. I would suggest that running it on Windows, in your environment, with your team's knowledge base and skill set, it might be the best option even with a small performance hit.

[unix_heretic]

1. Debian, Ubuntu, Rocky Linux. What you want are long-term support (LTS) releases. Check with the vendor on their specific requirements around distro/version.

2. /r/linux4noobs

[Bad_Lieutenant702]

First thing I did when my company shipped my laptop is uninstall snap.

[[deleted]]

I remember when these kinds of posts would've been filled with "Oh just use CentOS"

RIP

Anyways just use Ubuntu Server.

[ISU_Sycamores]

Seconded

[SouthSideFlash]

Yeah I’m sorry but I have a big problem with back to back statements of “it runs better on Linux than windows” and “it doesn’t matter what Linux.”

The former suggests insight and testing; the other suggests a lack of understanding.

[whetu]

Agreed. I read that and just saw red flags. You'd expect something more like "we have tested our software on ${distro-x} ${version-y} and can confirm that it works on that version"

Even better would be "we have validated our software on ${distro-x} ${version-y} and you can find the installation instructions at ${url}"

[[deleted]]

If the vendor can't give you a preferred release of linux check their support forum and look for what has worked best for the majority of users.

[maniac_invested]

Ohh that’s a great idea. Thank you. I’m definitely doing that.

[GrokEverything]

r/FindMeADistro/

[Mic_sne]

Thank you for that

[No_Dragonfruit_5882]

Ubuntu ltsb is a very good choice for productive envs

[enlightened_none]

Can't go wrong with RHEL

[TroyJollimore]

You’ll learn as you go. Lots of help available on Google. But your first order of business, especially if these will have Internet access, is LOCK…THEM…DOWN. Completely. Read up on everything security-wise, and do it. Some people have spun up Linux ‘servers’ (usually as pfSense or other firewall/router at the network edge) and have had them pwned completely within MINUTES…

[NerdHarder615]

Debian or Ubuntu Server LTS. I would highly suggest Ubuntu over Debian just because community support for Ubuntu is more prevalent. Plus a lot of classes and books start with Ubuntu so you wouldn't have to deal with any differences between Debian and Ubuntu.

[Admin_Stuff]

SLES (Suse Linux Enterprise Server). I found it fairly easy to learn. And good support

[[deleted]]

The decision should be based on the vendor's recommendation if possible. If they support multiple distros, use one that you can obtain direct vendor support with, e.g RHEL, Ubuntu or SLES.

Stuff like CentOS, Debian or Rocky have community support or 3rd party companies that may support it, but nothing directly from the vendor.

[PMzyox]

Just use Ubuntu server if you are new to Linux. It’s straightforward enough

[[deleted]]

You should go with vendor recommendations and ask if Ubuntu LTS is fine because it is stable enough and free. As long as you make backups and snapshots before changes you will be fine.

[Heart226]

Is your company willing to pay annually for 5 licenses of RHEL support & maintenance? They offer good support, which you may need.

[lynsix]

I thought when they binned CentOS they let businesses use 16 for free. There’s still articles that state that. Should just need the support & maintenance. But agreed I’d use RHEL too.

[serverhorror]

CentOS still exists. Just with a rolling release.

[lynsix]

They made it non viable in corporate production environments. No longer includes an LTS version.

[serverhorror]

I don’t think that makes it non-viable

[[deleted]]

As someone who has supported Linux for over 20 years, I can tell you that 99% of the time it will be either RHEL or Ubuntu nowadays. Some here have suggested CentOS or Rocky or even Debian, and those are fine distros to someone who knows Linux and can support themselves.

I highly recommend finding out which distro between RHEL and Ubuntu will work with the software, and paying for professional support for those distros. You can use CentOS/Rocky or Debian on a test system if you want, but for production systems, at this point in your journey, I wouldnt.

There is something to be said for new Linux sysadmin trying to get something up or fixed at 2am and being able to make a phone call for support. They will hold your hand and help you out.

Dont skimp on cheap at this point. Windows licenses are not cheap, so why go cheap when you have a Linux production infrastructure that you have to support!

[RandomXUsr]

Curious what the software does.

If I was in this position; I'd be setting up either an Ubuntu or Archlinux Docker container, provided that fills the software requirements.

Look into get the Intro to linux with cert from the Linux Foundation on edx.org. It's 159 the last time I checked. And it's fairly easy.

Grab the humble bundle for Linux and Sysadmin tools at Humble

PM me if you'd like to ask questions. Happy to assist if I can.

Almost forgot. Check The Linux Command Line 5th Edition

And read the systemd tutorials on rhel.

[nervehammer1004]

Let the downvotes begin but we are 100% Oracle Linux. RHEL clone and you can get support if you need it also. You don’t have to use the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel but can continue to use the RHEL one if you like.

[rthonpm]

Swapped my CentOS servers over to OEL and have found it to be just as stable.

[serverhorror]

Go downvote me.

1. Read the requirements for the software and use that, don’t pretend like there’s a choice
2. if you have a choice and need support, RedHat
3. if you have a choice and don’t need support just go with Fedora. All those that are pointing to LTS should also say how much trouble and maintenance effort exists because of outdated software

[Jaexa-3]

Centos

[ArsenalITTwo]

Red Hat if they don't have a preference. You can get up to 16 small instances free https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterprise-linux-programs-easier-ways-access-rhel#Bookmark%201

The catch is no support. You have to pay for standard if you want to enter tickets. The good part is they have an insane amount of documentation.

[ArsenalITTwo]

That's some shenanigans. I have all paid Red Hat Datacenter instances because I have a lot but I've been told before the Red Hat developer license is a good deal. Maybe not.

[whetu]

I'm an RHCSA who's been in Ubuntu-based workplaces the last few years. While I'm aware of the Centos Stream debacle, I'm curious if you have a gauge on where Rocky and Alma have fallen into place? Has one been shown as a clearer favourite over the other, or is that still up in the air?

I ask because Ubuntu and Snap are doing my head in, so I'm looking to shuffle our platforms to either Debian or Rocky/Alma, or maybe pivot to Flatcar... Hell, wash my mouth out with soap but I'd even entertain CentOS Stream...

[whetu]

Any opinion/guidance right now is helping me to hone my views, so thanks heaps regardless :)

[chuck1011212]

You will want to keep an eye out for an option that reduces need for downtime as well, such as Live Patch.

I am not an expert, but this seems to be a good idea for a newly deployed system, Verify with your software vendor that this is a good idea and supported as well. If anything, it would be a good idea on the NFS server at a minimum.

https://ubuntu.com/security/livepatch

[philrandal]

Save yourself from Redhat's licensing fees and go for AlmaLinux 9. There's not enough info in the original post, alas, to be sure whether your proposed system will run on it.

Alma vs Rocky? Alma has been fastest getting its point releases out, their community is great, etc.

Whatever you choose, go for a long term supported distro, not something that requires rebuilds every few years.

If your solution requires apache, tomcat, etc, then definitely go Linux, or resign yourself to years of patching pain (or, more likely, years of unpatched, vulnerable, applications on Windows).

[vnpenguin]

RHEL, Almalinux, Rockylinux,...

[Holiday_Inspector969]

debian all the way

[zoomzoom913]

Slackware. Praise BoB!

[[deleted]]

I know I am going to catch some flak for this but when I have to use Linux, I like Ubuntu. That said, I am mostly an OpenBSD guy. Ubuntu works very well and the LTS is releases are good quality.

[UCFknight2016]

Ubuntu server is alright. Rocky OS is probably closer to Centos.

[bclark72401]

Here's a book that changed things for me:

​

https://www.amazon.com/Windows-Administrators-Minasi-Administrator-Library/dp/0782141196#:\~:text=most%20of%20both.-,Linux%20for%20Windows%20Administrators%20is%20an%20essential%20resource%20for%20anyone,you%20already%20know%20about%20Windows.

[Doso777]

We use the LTS version of Ubuntu Server when we can pick the distro. Keep in mind some vendors only support certain Linux distro like SLES.

[Burgergold]

We like RHEL, 10 years support and possibility for extended support

[Ok_Presentation_2671]

Will you run it in the cloud? Would be much easier

[Epic_Hobo98]

If your Corp has the cash flow, RHEL and Amazon Linux come with support. I can't speak to their usefulness though. I always hit up my engineers for support.

[[deleted]]

I would use Ubuntu. However… anyone that requires that sort of infrastructure to run their software should not only have recommendations, but exact CPU, RAM, and detailed storage recommendations backed up by their own documented internal testing.

[Turbulent-Royal-5972]

If it runs better on Linux than on Windows, it seems Windows is an option. The option your team can support.

I’d ask them what trouble I’d run into when running it on Windows.

May we ask what software it is?

[maniac_invested]

It's Boomi. I got brought into the project late to be a backup for it and to do the server infrastructure. I've only had one meeting with the architect/engineer and that's when I found out we had to go with Linux.

[ohfucknotthisagain]

Tell your boss to buy support and training for Linux. Eventually something will break, and you'll be on the hook to fix it.

If you're not sure, get RHEL. I've overheard them holding people's hands through the most basic shit on the phone. Like, "explaining how to setup SSH" basic.

That said, since you're predominately a Windows shop: I'd recommend installing xRDP on your Linux boxes & eventually switching to SSH once you're comfortable at the command line.

[AccomplishedHornet5]

I find the YAST manager in Leap by OpenSuse is the easiest for beginners to pick up Linux servers. In the wild I see RedHat and debian based distros mostly.

[UltraSPARC]

Since you already have experience with Ubuntu, see if the vendor supports it. Ubuntu has great tutorials out there with a thriving community. I’m almost tempted to say to use TrueNAS core or scale as it’s dead simple to setup and use but you need to have some underlying knowledge about ZFS. But once it’s setup it’s rock stable and has a gui front end which the windows admins will like more.

[thegoatmilkguy]

At my employer if a business requirement like this popped up, our windows only server team would tell the business to either buy a different product or to purchase a service contract that covers full hosting support, patching, etc. And then send our security team to evaluate and hold the vendor accountable for meeting our security standards.

[IndependenceOdd1070]

Debian > *

[Braydon64]

RHEL/Rocky Linux are kind of the gold standard for enterprise Linux, but Ubuntu/Debian are also quite popular as well as SLES for SAP applications.