Slashdot Log In
Ask Slashdot: NT to Linux Migration Costs?
Posted by
Cliff
on Fri May 21, 1999 09:08 PM
from the bean-counting dept.
from the bean-counting dept.
Alex asks:
"How would one go about calculating immediate costs and
tangible benefits of migrating an NT/Novell IntranetWare
LAN to Linux. I am not talking only about long-term
benefits as in more uptime, fewer crashes, robustness,
etc., but if I could use fewer and cheaper boxes for file,
internet and print servers. What could I say to a company
about the immediate benefits?" What about the costs
associated with retraining? What pitfalls do NT admins have
to worry about when moving to Linux?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ask Slashdot: NT to Linux Migration Costs?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 165 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
don't get rid of anything yet! (Score:3)
one thing to keep in mind is while you can telnet to any linux box there is no widspread management system or nds for linux available yet, caldera has some support, but it will be coming out soon for everyone else. I would keep the novell serevrs for nds alone. once you can drop your linux servers into the tree things will be easy going. but also don't fool yourself into thinking you can replace nt if you invested heavily in things like exchange, IIS, and SQL. These days everyone wants linux to scale to the moon but for now be happy with the basic things it can provide you. and a few months from now when everything is running smoothly you will have the "return' you are looking for.
Case study (Score:5)
Firstly - the service. The service is a popular European web-based application, mainly targetted at business users - shared email, calendaring and that sort of thing. It has a user base expected to increase to several million in the next year. It currently runs on a small cluster of NT servers fronted with a Linux/Apache proxy server (the Linux proxy server is another story - we use mod_rewrite to work around a number of bugs on the NT software
Starting a few months ago, I was employed to migrate the software entirely to Linux. For this, I have myself and one other person full time and a number of support people ordering and building kit. We started out by designing a scalable database back end and then we rewrote all the dynamic NT scripts in Perl. We are using Apache + mod_perl as the platform to run it on. Rewriting the scripts in Perl took two months. We are now spending a month in a closed beta test of the new system, and expect to spend another month importing all the users and their data across from the old system. Four months in total.
On the hardware side, it came as a pleasant surprise to find that we could get away with relatively low-end hardware on the Apache web servers. We are currently specifying single Intel P-II 450 systems with 512 MB RAM and 8 GB drives. Our scalability tests indicate that each of these machines can handle the load from around 100,000 subscribers (that's subscribers, not active concurrent users).
The expensive bit is the database. The nature of the web application we have developed is that it has enormous data storage requirements. We archive and store a lot of information on behalf of each of our subscribers. Because there is no high quality database solution for Linux yet - by which I mean no database which offers parallel servers and failover - we are using a popular commercial database on a commercial Unix. This is by far the most expensive part of the system. It looks like we will be paying the best part of $200,000 just for the database / 1 TB storage / back up solution.
Even though we are based in Europe, we have not had any trouble employing bright Linux experts straight out of university. Linux users tend to be a lot smarter than NT users too, since (at present) most people presenting themselves for jobs as `Linux experts' have had to take the initiative and strike out on their own. They are usually more motivated too for the same reason.
Some quick lessons learned: (1) You must make sure you employ people familiar with Linux. (2) It helps if management are behind you on this. Where I work, management have stated that they never want to see any more NT systems deployed. (3) The biggest technical problem to adopting the new system was converting all the old data (in NT proprietary formats) into open formats. If you have a lot of data, then this is a very important cost to factor in. Luckily if we decided in the future to move from Linux to another platform, then we would not have to pay this cost again.
Thoughts from former NT admin (that's FORMER) (Score:3)
- as countless others have said, start modestly. Ideal would be recycling an older generic PC (not Compaq server or laptop) as a simple Samba server. Have an NT admin install Redhat 5.2 with default "server" option, and just make it an extra place to store files. If there are problems getting Samba going, use it as an "FTP dumping ground" for archiving stuff you may want to keep around. Then get Samba going.
- Point to zero-cost fileserver for the admins to use. That's win #1.
- get a subscription to Linux Journal for the admins. The enthusiasm of the writers and the sheer coolness of what's happening with Linux worldwide will start to infect NT folks too.
- Figure out what NT servers are reaching end of life, etc. Get a rough forecast on new web servers needed, etc. Match them up: instead of a costly *new* server for NT/IIS, show how the capital budget won't take any hit at all if servers are recycled into Linux boxes.
Several different questions (Score:5)
*nix vs. {NT, Netware}
Linux vs. {NT, Netware}
NT vs. Netware
Linux vs. NT
Linux vs. Netware
cross many domains and will yield different answers depending on the problem to be solved and the way the questions are phrased.
In my experience, for example, NT has about 3x the resource cost of Netware in a large departmental environment (200-400 corporate users in 1-2 locations, 20% mobile users). But administration costs for NT go up exponentially as the number of sites and mobile users, while Netware administration costs go up linearly with the same variables.
So if you are trying to convince me to replace NT with Linux, you need to demonstrate that in the equation c = n ** p (c = cost, n = number of sites), p is
But if you are trying to replace Netware with Linux, you are going to have to prove that p
Others have made the argument about NDS, so I won't beat that one to death. But please keep in mind that if you haven't administered a large corporate network, you shouldn't knock NDS until you have used it.
sPh
Re:Netware vs. Linux -- no real point in switching (Score:5)
Caveat: I haven't used Novell since the 4.11 release, as I moved off into NT administration after that. And I have not used a Novell TCP/IP network yet. However, I serviced A LOT of 3.12 servers and a few 4.11.
The reason I like Linux so well is the same reason I like Novell: it works. It works well. It doesn't crash. Novell is just as reliable as Linux, in my experience, and maybe more so. Generally speaking, the only way a Novell server is going to fall over is if the hardware dies.
Now, I have seen unstable Netware installations, but invariably they have been hack jobs by administrators that didn't know what they were doing. A properly administered Netware network is granite solid.
In my mind, Linux's primary advantages over NT are reliability and open source. If something is wrong, I can always fix it with Linux if I'm willing to put the time in to really understand the problem, and once I fix it, it will stay fixed. However, in general, Novell is easier to figure out and it also stays fixed. You do give up a lot of control of the system, but in general Netware works the way Microsoft wishes NT did -- most of the time you don't need bit-level control because it's not going to break.
Novell also thinks their problem solutions out thoroughly. Their print queue is a good example of this. NT sort of has some of the same functionality, but it's a lot easier to maintain complex print structures in Novell and it's a hell of a lot easier to route around problems. Linux's print queues are postively archaic by comparison. You more or less have to build one by hand, and magic filters are a pain in the butt to figure out. Now, you can do more with Linux and print queues: once you understand it you can do just about any neat hack you like. But for most of us, Novell's approach is better. You can start printing with a minimum of fuss and go from there. Linux makes you jump through friggin' hoops to get everything configured properly. That's true of a lot of solutions in Linux.
Novell requires technical skill but has excellent documentation, is much more consistent, and is built with the big picture in mind. You can make HUGE networks with Novell. Most Linux apps aren't designed with the same kind of scalability in mind. They are often written by people with experience with small networks who have an itch. There aren't nearly as many working with really big nets, so there aren't nearly as many good solutions to the BIG problems. Novell is in the business of charging lots of money for solutions to the BIG problems, and they provide excellent, thoroughly-thought-out ones, too.
In my opinion, you'd be best off leaving your network core on Novell. Use Linux, but use it alongside, not in replacement. If you need the whizbang TCP/IP capabilities, or want to deploy a free web server, then you can plop down Linux boxes wherever you like. And when NDS for Linux ships, you'll be able to glue the systems together very closely with a minimum of fuss (apparently).
This is the strategy we have taken. We don't mind having Samba and NT next to each other. (we have no Novell in my present job, which is rather a shame.) We try to run most Internet-related protocols on Linux(we'd use BSD but I haven't learned it yet), and run Microsoft stuff on NT, and everyone stays happy. Samba interoperates nicely in a network with a PDC already in it.
There just is no sense in throwing away your existing investment unless it is too costly to maintain. Linux will certainly help save on maintenance costs once you grok it, but the upfront learning costs are steep. Amortize those by doing little pilot projects until you really know what you're doing. Someday, you may wake up and find that Linux is the center of your network -- but you also might not. And that's okay.
Remember, Open Source isn't going away. It's here for the long haul. You don't have to make this an either/or battle. It's not NT OR Linux, it's NT AND Linux. Take advantage of Open Source where it can help you, and try to give back and make it better. If you insist on making it a war, someone has to lose, and it could be you. If there is no war, then there can be no loser.
-- Ron
Re:"Primay Domain Controller" stuff can be a bitch (Score:3)
It's running on a Dell Poweredge 4300, Dual Processor with 512MB RAM. The reason the machine is so hefty is because it's also serving IMAP for these same 100 users, print serving about 20 printers, handling a web E-mail application, apache, DNS, and lots of other miscellaneous duties. This is on a 100 MBit network.
The nice thing is that we can put all of these applications on one server, maintain backups and all, and the reliability stays right up there. We can run as many applications as we want, and we're nowhere near using up the CPU time. Most of the time the load average stays below
The server has been solid. We've had a few problems with corruption of the data recently. Hopefully this was just due to the beta MegaRAID driver in some of the 2.2.x kernels. Also, there have been a couple of problems with the u.washington imap daemon and Netscape, but we've been able to work around most of them.
Other than that, the server works flawlessly. There have been no problems with Samba, and we've had 30 day uptimes (would have been lots more, except we needed to do a hardware upgrade), and we've had no reliability problems with Linux.
This isn't a migration, however. This network was an upgrade from Novell, and these NT clients were purchased so that the client would have a managed architecture.
I won the contract since I offered better rates than the NT consultants they talked to and they liked the consulting work I did earlier. One big factor was the fact that they didn't have to pay licensing fees, which easily would have doubled the cost of the project.
The client is happy. They have an NT network that works. I don't get called about the machine in weeks at a time. Their staff has learned to use the utilities under Linux to manage Samba, and had no trouble learning a bit about Unix permissions, the samba configuration file, and smbpasswd, smbstatus, etc. It really isn't that hard to learn this stuff, and once you know it, it becomes easy to manage the network from anywhere.
They have a few remote offices, but those offices each have a Samba server set up. Maybe in the future we'll synchronize passwords across the whole company, but there's no need for it right now. The corporation is large, but is by no means huge, and most of the company is in the office in New York.
Netware vs. Linux (Score:3)
I admit this is a somewhat uneducated opinion. I've used linux and samba occasionaly, but am by no means an expert.
One thing I like about Netware is NDS. On anything but the smallest network you just can't beat NDS for managing users, groups, etc. I'm sure utilities exist for performing the same tasks in Samba preventing the need to manually edit the conf file. But we're still talking a flat file database at the lowest level. This can never compare with a directory service. Although I've heard rumors of Novell porting NDS to Linux. That might be a great combination.
I guess the main point is that if your current administrators are diehard NDS fans (like myself) convincing them to switch to Samba for file services will be a hard sell. You have to have the "*nix mindset" to put up with the quirks of a unix like os. I'm working on it, but I've still got a long way to go 8 )
My .02
Steve
Linux is Quantum Leap (Score:5)
Imediate costs and benefits? Well implementing Linux is a tremendous headache. But results overcome expectations.
We are a group divided by three/four teams with 30 people around and serving a whole University network. We had a very interesting place around here called "Internet classes". Some sort of Internet Cafe without coffee. It consists of 70 workstations, several servers of different types and serving more than 2500 users of a wide range of professions and knowledge. The stuff here is quite serious. It is mainly IBM and Sun hardware and it costs a Hell of money.
We started the whole thing on a Solaris/Novell/AIX/NT environment. It didn't work. For 6 monthes we were turned to janitoring constantly a system on which NT was giving tremendous headaches. Things became a major crisis after a serious crash that stopped work for nearly a week.
Some of us lobbied to see NT replaced. After the NT Armageddon's day we got green light to deliver something on Linux in a month. It was Hell. We had problems and problems and problems. But we came with something two months ago.
Results? It is working. Last week we destroyed the NT image that we kept in any case. The last NT box had oxygen cut yesterday at 16:30. People are facing a system several orders more complex than before and are not deeply concerned about it. Some even love it.
The fearful "We want NT back!" didn't last more than a week. Crashes, hangups, coredumps happen but it is several orders of magnitude less than before (some of these new boxes worked nearly two monthes round'clock. A powercut spoiled things).
Do people fear such primitevenesses like the commandline? Yes. But soon they will start (re)using it because there are things that do their job much better than their desktop brothers.
Before we were forced to stick users to "one desktop, one environment". Right now we have a mega-crazyness here where each one chooses the working environment he likes most. And changes the environment as he likes. Before we had a cracking epidemics here. Now we have hackers digging up deeply on the system and helping things grow up. Before we forced everyone to accept the administrative fascism of having a restricted set of apps. Now security is based mostly in supervision. We allow people to do almost everything with their systems as users of a classic UNIX environment.
Right now we have not only a reliable network where people have finally the chance to work. Right now things are overcoming expectations. These two classes are no longer "cafe's". It is Linux Heavy Industries. It is a place where Internet lives not only of browsing. Some users turn their environments to full-fetched working horses. Others use it on developing apps for Internet. And all of us have seen a tremendous boost on development overall. We now are growing things and not janitoring like before. Meanwhile teams are getting free to care for areas that were not touched during the NT hiatus.
Besides we are now planning the future. We are trying to implement things such as clusters here. As an experiment we joined the RC5 contest. Amazingly we are getting a good place over there. There are plans to implement Coda or a huge webcacher based on Squid.
Want to turn to Linux from NT? Take attention to these permises:
You have to take some good time on tuning your hardware. Even in "smooth" installation may hide a lot of "features". And a good careful tuning may turn a rather "slow" machine into something amazing.
Check all those apps over there. Linux is still quite loosen on configurations. And that's a HUGE +. You have a very good chance to fit things much more to your requests.
Office apps are a big problem in Linux. But our world doesn't end here. Try to find a middleterm. When users will note everything else, they will stop whinning and start to hunt you for even more.
If your main language is not english you may find a problem. But most of it is pure cosmetcis. The final result is more rewarding than NT.
Linux is not beautiful. Because power means rawness. And its up to the user to paint it. When he gets there don't get scared. Everyone has a Picasso inside.
Linux crashes. Programs crash. However you have a wide field to maneuver. Even dealing with commercial "crazy" apps is much easier and there's a bigger chance to find solutions.
Take time. The most important is to make a good pre-installation. Get everything you have and try to make the "box of your and their dreams". Check and test it carefully. And then give your users a "gift".
They will cry over you. They will ask your head. They will pass near you and imagine that see you with a rope on your neck they'l be willing to push. But it will not last long. If things were made carefully and well-planned, then NT will be History in a few weeks.
Get a small development team around you. That's very important. Linux is growable and fetching things to specific needs gives a powerful boost on work. If there are no chances to get a developer then roam Internet as much as possible. Even a small sh script may improve things a lot.
Beware. In a few monthes you may note that you are no longer a network administrator...
Re:"Primay Domain Controller" stuff can be a bitch (Score:5)
Unix apps are easier to support (Score:4)
Most of the time I see cost savings in terms of
how much can I save by not moving to NT from a
costly Unix. It is more difficult when you can't
use the 40K per box savings argument. One place I
see as a major savings is in applications support.
I currently support 400+ Design tools on several
Unix platforms, my peers who are supporting
similar tools on NT are not even close. NT likes
things to be local, it likes things to make
registry changes instead of environment vars, it
likes dll's in places they shouldn't be and most
applications refuse to be a 'Network only'
install. The more applications and the more people
you support the worse the problem gets. I can
install a Unix tool for 1 person or 1000 at the
same cost. NT tools that want to touch the
registry require overhead for EVERY customer.
-SOTTEK
"Primay Domain Controller" stuff can be a bitch (Score:3)
I spent a lot of time banging my head against this with Samba, trying to figure out how to get it done, without really knowing the intricacies of NT administration. My boss had little sympathy: "Just tell it to do password verification" he would sneer, thinking to himself: Fuckin' dumbass.
Then my boss and I went to LWCE (the first one), and heard a talk by the main Samba guy. He talked about the great lengths MS has gone through to keep the password verification APIs secret. The Samba guy had gone to Microsoft conferences, had met with one of the head NT server guys at MS, had tried unsuccessfuly to get answers out of him. The MS guy had turned red and scampered out of the room. (Well, that might have been exaggeration.) MS has put a lot of effort into obfuscating things so that no one else on the planet can make a replacement NT server (because competition in unamerican). This has made it really really difficult for the Samba folks to make effective password verification routines. (BTW, my boss ate his words for thinking I was an idiot for not getting PDC stuff running.)
So the long and short of this is, if you want to do password verification for NT clients, you'll have to keep around a spare dinky little NT server box to verify passwords.
Hopefully people will flame me, saying "You idiot! It's easy to set up a Samba PDC!" But unless they actually POST HOW TO DO IT (hint), kindly redirect them to
Re:Unix apps are easier to support (Score:3)
> by network going down or bandwidth problem.
Perfectly right observation. If you do not want to bother about network downtime, don't rely on file server to host your software. Don't rely on network login system to host your login information. That way you're sure to be locked out when network fails.
But then for Linux, it is your choice. You can use NFS and NIS on a network which is usually up. You can make it standalone and manage all the binaries yourselves. You can use rdist to distribute software to your machine from the server automatically every night, avoid the need to track with security patches and new versions, while not lagging behind for too long. You find the BEST solution for your situation.
Not so for NT. You will have to take the trouble managing registry, and most likely this HAVE to be done by individually installing the software on each machine.
> At the rate IT is shoving stuff down our throat,
> I will put the corporate computer aside and
> bring my own one to do my job as best as I can
> do and not according to some IT guy who thinks
> he knows all about my application and loads the
> vanilla flavour of it.
Good luck, then. You should understand that by doing this, you are taking up another job of system administration. Many people enjoy this, and I do like managing my own Linux cluster. But I can only enjoy this when updating the system can be done automatically (I'm using Debian). I remember that I hate the need to update my system every now and then on my Slackware system: I have to look at individual package, check whether it is old, read README file, and install it. Unless you only have a couple of applications to keep updated, you'll definitely get tired of it.
Most Linux applications ARE user configurable through environment variables. After doing your own customizations, you can start relying on your system admins to upgrade the software. No more constant peeping at web site.
Random observations... (Score:5)
But one thing I've noticed is that when we buy an NT server, we always end up specifying a bigger one than we really need, if for no other reason than to make so the installation and reboots go a little faster. I'm not talking about crashes, just routine reboots that we're inevitably forced to do for minor configuration changes. When your servers are lightly loaded, as ours are, there can be actual cost savings using Linux.
But the hardware costs for such servers are usually less than the cost of the people who manage them. That can cut both ways. On the one hand, there are plenty of people who can keep a simple NT network up and running, and it's harder to find people with Linux experience. But one of the best-kept secrets about Linux is how incredibly easy it is for a competent person to manage. My NT experience vastly outweighs my Linux experience, but when an NT server gets cranky, I still get cold chills. On a Linux box, I calmly look at the log files, and usually find the answer pretty quickly. Samba's SWAT web admin tool is killer, far easier to use than anything in NT.
So, it all comes down to people. If you have people who are sharp, who understand what's really going on while they're clicking "Next... Next... Finish," then they should be able to do a lot more neat things in a lot less time with Linux.
Much also depends on how the company accounts for costs. Smaller businesses often ignore support and admin costs ("We have 3 people in our IS department, and they're on salary, so nothing's really going to change our costs.").
One other consideration, is that it's often useful to think not in terms of migrating but of integrating. It's relatively easy to pop a Samba server into an existing NT network. Keep doing that, and eventually all you'll have on NT is a PDC. So think of file services and authentication services separately. Linux can be used as the workhorse file-spitter-outer, while you maintain some other system, whether it be NIS or NT or, in the future, NDS, as the authentication system and user database. (hmmm... couldn't Samba use PAM to authenticate against a Novell server?)
Re:Uh oh, learning curves... (Score:3)
On the other hand, if NT is causing serious problems that need to be addressed, you can start out by deploying Linux in a limited capacity. Convert over a couple of servers as testbeds, and get your administrators familiar with their day-to-day operation. This can introduce them to the benefits that Linux provides. Once that's done, you can gradually roll your remaining NT boxes to Linux as the administration crew gains experience.
Good luck!
Start Small (Score:3)
a dns server there.. Etc. Make sure the staff gets
a lot of good traning and make sure they run linux
on their desktops. You will probably need to hire
a bunch of consultants to help you and teach your
staff the basics. Going from unix to NT is okay..
but IMHO going from NT to unix is a HUGE learning
curve. As far as cost? Hmm well training your
entire staff bigtime, time associated with making
the transition, a support contract for your
inexperienced admins, maybe some hardware replacement issues (not everything is supported)
I wouldnt attempt to introduce the entire company to linux. (servers only). The avg worker would freak out trying to use linux to do their job after using winnt.
I LOVE linux.. but going from NT to linux will
be a BIG nightmare in the beginning.. but become
much easier then admining NT over time. I guess
what you really have to ask is.. is the time you
would invest in the beginning be worth it in the
end? Is stability and reliability a KEY component
in your environment?
Re:It's as stable as the people who admin it (Score:3)
Coexist not Migrate (Score:4)
I work in an office where NT and Linux coexist. We plan to use Linux as a proxy server. We are also getting a linux based web server. We are not moving desktops to Linux yet. But you can bet that over time we will slowly but surely.