# network admins: what flavor of linux is most used in the workplace?



## Easy Rhino (Oct 22, 2008)

the question is in the topic. i know my way around several different flavors of linux but am curious to know which you network admins think is the most used or recognized in corporations, etc. i would guess solaris but i wouldnt be surprised if it is redhat.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 22, 2008)

redhat/suse


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 22, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> redhat/suse



thanks. and what are their main functions?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 22, 2008)

honestly i dont know, its what i hear my netadmin friends talk about.


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 22, 2008)

The main server at my Univeristy runs off Solaris. It runs our webserver and network @ Uni.


----------



## Disparia (Oct 22, 2008)

We have four dedicated web servers at two different hosts and they're all running CentOS.

Internally I have a CentOS virtual machine for game serving. Past that, I don't know.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 22, 2008)

I see a ton of Redhat, Suse and Ubuntu.

And I actually have Ubuntu running on 2 Dell 1900's here, running Server 2003 in a VM, which is running Virtual Server LOL.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 22, 2008)

Jizzler said:


> We have four dedicated web servers at two different hosts and they're all running CentOS.
> 
> Internally I have a CentOS virtual machine for game serving. Past that, I don't know.



for game serving?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 22, 2008)

niko084 said:


> I see a ton of Redhat, Suse and Ubuntu.
> 
> And I actually have Ubuntu running on 2 Dell 1900's here, running Server 2003 in a VM, which is running Virtual Server LOL.



LOL! a lot of network admins seem to do a lot of that.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 22, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> LOL! a lot of network admins seem to do a lot of that.



Heh, well being they are pretty much file servers, gotta put those dual quads to work...


----------



## panchoman (Oct 22, 2008)

i think redhat/fedora are the most common, and the tpu servers do run one of those btw.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 22, 2008)

suse/solaris

in fact my site awhile back my buddy cousin was running for me it runs on solaris10 on an ultrasparc


----------



## Disparia (Oct 22, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> for game serving?



Only Q3A right now.

Just hired a couple new people in IT, so now there's enough for a decent game


----------



## v-zero (Oct 23, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> i would guess solaris but i wouldnt be surprised if it is redhat.



Solaris is not Linux.

As for the question at hand, I see Red Hat and Suse a lot when I see Linux, but more often I see BSD in one form or another...


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 23, 2008)

Quite some different editions, different per company. For instance at my current job we use some Linux named "Windows". At my previous job we had several hundred Suse servers in the stores and mostly ESX servers with Windows on them at the office. Besides that various Unix servers and SCO.


----------



## Flyordie (Oct 30, 2008)

When I went to college for Network Management/Linux/Unix we used Fedora 7 for it. ;-p
Fedora loved my Radeon 7200GT All-In-Wonder and hated Nvidia. Everyone else couldn't get desktop effects going cause they had 7300GS's... and I was using that 7200GT. lol.

I then bought my rackmount about 2 weeks into the course (10wk course) and am the proud owner of 2x Quad Core Barcelona's at 2.7Ghz and for GFX 2x X1650XTs in Crossfire.  No one messes with my server. umphh.
 Currently I am hosting a TS server on it (leased, private) and have 99.4% uptime on the year. I had a TAGAN PSU kick the bucket and had to overnight a new Antec NeoHE 650W which cost out the butt. So far, I like Fedora... Ubuntu needs some serious user friendly improvements before I move to it.

Flyordie
EDIT- The 7200GT is an R100 Core with a 220Mhz Core, 220Mhz Mem Clock.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2008)

Jizzler said:


> We have four dedicated web servers at two different hosts and they're all running CentOS.
> 
> Internally I have a CentOS virtual machine for game serving. Past that, I don't know.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Cent just RedHat rebadged, and without support?


----------



## VulkanBros (Oct 30, 2008)

Gentoo / MAC for all network releated administration (Cisco routers/switches) 
VMware 3.5 ESX for all virtual Windows servers
HP UX (Hewlett Packard UNIX build) for all robotics systems


----------



## Disparia (Oct 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Cent just RedHat rebadged, and without support?



Yup, that's CentOS.

It's popular with the web hosts - GoDaddy, Lunarpages, Atlantic.net, HostGator, etc.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 3, 2008)

good info as always. im going with fedora 9 as the main OS and will run vista, ubunto jeos and freebsd as virtual machines. i figure i should really make the quad core 2.66 ghz run like a beast with 4 gigs of ram. i should probably go 8 gigs but the board only supports 4. maybe by christmas i will have the second rig up and running.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 3, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> good info as always. im going with fedora 9 as the main OS and will run vista, ubunto jeos and freebsd as virtual machines. i figure i should really make the quad core 2.66 ghz run like a beast with 4 gigs of ram. i should probably go 8 gigs but the board only supports 4. maybe by christmas i will have the second rig up and running.



Might support 8. I say it's worth a try anyway. If not, you have a nice 4GB kit to put in a second rig.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 3, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> good info as always. im going with fedora 9 as the main OS and will run vista, ubunto jeos and freebsd as virtual machines. i figure i should really make the quad core 2.66 ghz run like a beast with 4 gigs of ram. i should probably go 8 gigs but the board only supports 4. maybe by christmas i will have the second rig up and running.



Highly unlikely that a chipset new enough to support a quad core doesn't support 8GB.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 3, 2008)

id say redhat


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 3, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Might support 8. I say it's worth a try anyway. If not, you have a nice 4GB kit to put in a second rig.





DanTheBanjoman said:


> Highly unlikely that a chipset new enough to support a quad core doesn't support 8GB.



that is what i thought but the board's manual says support up to 4 gigs. it is a microatx board tho so it only has 2 slots. perhaps 2x4 gig ram would work. i will check google to see if anyone has tried it.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 3, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> that is what i thought but the board's manual says support up to 4 gigs. it is a microatx board tho so it only has 2 slots. perhaps 2x4 gig ram would work. i will check google to see if anyone has tried it.



Ah, two slots. The chipset most likely won't have problems with more. At the time of printing there probably were only 2GB DIMMs. It's like my old X7, manual says 24GB, though it won't mind more using larger modules. I doubt any manual takes 16GB modules into account for instance. Elpida made those, sick stuff  8GB is more common though, and still not taken into account with last years boards.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 4, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Ah, two slots. The chipset most likely won't have problems with more. At the time of printing there probably were only 2GB DIMMs. It's like my old X7, manual says 24GB, though it won't mind more using larger modules. I doubt any manual takes 16GB modules into account for instance. Elpida made those, sick stuff  8GB is more common though, and still not taken into account with last years boards.



cool. i will try it out in a couple of months to see if it will handle 8 gigs.


----------



## Swansen (Dec 27, 2008)

There really are two big players in the Linux server market, RedHat and Debian, and i'm sure there is a server out there for every distro, but those two are what you'll most likely find.


----------



## Castiel (Dec 28, 2008)

I was told in my networking class that all types are used.


----------



## ktr (Dec 28, 2008)

My work uses Fedora...


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 28, 2008)

ktr said:


> My work uses Fedora...



interesting since that is the free version of redhat. and ubuntu is just debian.


----------



## Swansen (Jan 13, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> and ubuntu is just debian.



 Ubuntu is hardly Debian

--edit--
but yes, its "based" off debian.... they just decided to do some really weird things when developing it....


----------



## 3870x2 (Jan 13, 2009)

Redhat is by far the most used professional side of linux for network operations.  Fedora is redhat, geared more towards the user, and other than ubuntu is seen as one of the best user-based linux, although ive had my fair share of problems with compatibility issues, but I had 64-bit.  It was blazing-fast though.


----------

