Topic: How to justify using SME server among other free software distributions?

[yersin]

Hi, everybody.

I'm using SME server only as a web server for a university project. I find SME server easy to administer; however, I have been asked to justify first my using a GNU/linux distribution, and second my choosing SME server, especially considering that the business where I am implementing my project already has licenses for Windows Server.

In summary, I need to answer these questions:

How to "demonstrate" that a GNU/Linux distribution is better than windows? (in terms of security and speed, maybe?)

How to justify using SME server among other free software distributions?

I wonder if I could find statistics or studies related to what I need to prove (mainly the second question, since it would be hard to find answers to it in other forums).

Thanks for your time.
Yersin
(Huancayo, Peru)

[raem]

yersin

For starters read
http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:About

[yersin]

yersin

For starters read
http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:About

Thanks for answering quickly, MRayMitchell. I had seen that page before and I think it's good for starters; besides, those references are a little old.
How else is it possible to compare SME Server with other distributions and windows?

Thanks again.

[mmccarn]

SME vs Windows (Pros):
* Easier to backup & restore  - a "warm spare" server can be setup using free software (Affa) that can take over for the primary server within minutes in the event of a failure
* Proven security history (I am aware of no security issues on any up-to-date SME server that cannot be attributable to bad security choices made by the sysadmins - bad passwords or insecure PHP scripts, for example)
* Open source solution does not leave users hostage to future Microsoft plans
* Open source solution has lower up-front costs than proprietary solution (not much lower if you are a non-profit who can get Windows for almost $nothing...)

SME vs Windows (Cons):
* Exchange server is pretty cool and does a lot of stuff that nothing else does except Notes or Groupwise.
* "Knowledgeable" windows support can be obtained almost anywhere

SME vs Other Linux (Pros):
* SME is kept up-to-date by the developers, so it is easy for a careful network admin to keep their system patched with all security updates.
* SME community is knowledgable and friendly, providing help at almost any level (admittedly with frequent suggestions to read the manual, wiki, or whatever...)
* Proven security history - even for relatively inexperienced admins.
* Friendly developers, willing to help users develop custom solutions to specific problems - either by creating the solutions themselves (in exchange for $$$), or by helping and advising users who want to develop SME-compatible updates or addons
* SME is a great open-source server solution if your desired functions are included in the SME base or in the well-supported contribs.
* Less linux experience is required to safely and effectively administer a SME server compared to other Linux distros.


SME vs Other Linux (Cons):
* It can be tricky installing generic Linux software on a SME server
* An experienced linux admin will find it easier to add software to a "generic" linux/unix server.
* The SME templating system is non-standard and must be learned and understood before customizing a SME server outside of the bounds described in the wiki, forums, or bug tracker.


Conclusions:
* Get SME if what you need is included in the core feature set and well-supported contribs.
* Get SME if you can't afford a Windows / Exchange solution.
* Get SME if you don't have the amount of linux experience required to maintain a "generic" linux/unix server.
* Get SME if you can't afford to pay for linux support from one of the large linux vendors.
* Get SME if you want to actively support Open Source Software
* Get SME if you want to actively avoid Microsoft.

[CharlieBrady]

* "Knowledgeable" windows support can be obtained almost anywhere

I actually don't find that to be true. The internal workings of Windows are intentionally hidden, and are in any case complex and sometimes self-contradictory. Knowledge at a superficial level is certainly widely available, but really knowledgable windows support is relatively rare.

[zatnikatel]

One other thing a like about linux once setup it just keeps going
SME is fast as easy to setup i love the distro centos is cool as well but setting up postfix mailscanner dovecot will take a better part of a day but once done it runs with out a problem
it can take like 2 housr just to install windows and exchange server and SBS version of win2k3 is painfull on the install
the amout of ram that exchange uses is just over the top you have 2GB of ram it will use almost all of it and that is just for store.exe
linux rocks
and when you patch linux no problem but patch vista with SP1 and you will have a computer that goes into and endless reboot cycle

[yersin]

Thanks a lot, mmccarn.

That list was pretty much I've been looking for. I'd really appreciate it if more things can be added by other users. On the other hand, is there anyway to prove SME Server's "Proven security history" or "Exceptional reliability". I mean, are there studies or statistics related to it that could be referenced?

I've also read somewhere that SME server is quite small and thus consumes less resources and is faster. Can that be proven with numbers too? (I need to be as convincing as possible)

Thanks.
Yersin

[CharlieBrady]

I've also read somewhere that SME server is quite small and thus consumes less resources and is faster. Can that be proven with numbers too? (I need to be as convincing as possible)

You should do your own testing.

[zatnikatel]

You should do your own testing.

true but you know some big companies like case studies not information from a little guy

[CharlieBrady]

true but you know some big companies like case studies not information from a little guy

We are all little guys here. If a big company wants a study, they should pay for it.

[zatnikatel]

We are all little guys here. If a big company wants a study, they should pay for it.

And you know the evil empire MS will stop people useing Linux any way they can i do think the Suse deal wont go anyware mandriva linux would have to be the best for a desktop SME or centos as a server but centos as a multimedia work station is a pain in the ass to setup even to play MP3 for a multimedia linux workstation nothing can beat mandriva and urpmi is cool and easy to use easyurpmi.zarb.org and there is much PLF (Penguin Liberation Front) files for mandriva mencoder beats any windows video encoding programs

true most companies only know MS and pay for the nose for it

[cactus]

centos as a server but centos as a multimedia work station is a pain in the ass to setup even to play MP3 for a multimedia linux workstation nothing

First off all irrelevant as CentOS is an enterprise class distribution and SME Server is a server distribution, both are not a multimedia box. Second I have been very succesfull on running MythTV on CentOS where many other Linux flavours were failing almost out of the box (as I only needed to (re)compile network drivers). I watch and record television, play CD's, MP3, ogg and a wide variety of video files on it without problems (Still needs some updating but here it is: http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/User:Cactus).

[yersin]

You should do your own testing.

I've thought of doing that, but I don't know what steps I should follow. If I user virtual machines, what tools or programs can I use to prove that SME server is faster, more secure, and consumes less resources? Or how should I do tests? (I'm kind of new to networking)

Thanks for helping me.

[pfloor]

You can compare published system requirements:

For SME: http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:Documentation:Administration_Manual:Chapter4#4.1._Minimum_Hardware_Requirements

Minimum (I would not recommend this):
400 MHz Processor
256 Meg Ram

Recommended:
1.5 GHz Processor
512 Meg Ram

For Exchange-2007 on *Server-2008x64: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx
(*Note: Full version Exchange 2007 will not run on 32 bit OS)

Minimum:
64 bit Processor
2 Gig Ram

MS doesn't publish "recommended" specs (as far as I could see) but I can tell you this from personal experience:

2 Gig of Ram is barely enough for 1 or 2 users.  The server will run with 2 Gig and 5 users but will run slow.  3 Gig worked better but it took 4 Gig of ram to get this server with 9 users working good.  This machine is used for email only.

I am used to SME and snappy responses.  Exchange 2007 is sluggish at best on standard hardware.  It takes (what seems) forever just to load the Exchange Management Console.  It may perform better on multi-processor server hardware but I don't have the equipment to test it.


Also, Server-2008 is intended to run behind a separate firewall so setting up the firewall on Server-2008 is not for the inexperienced.  2008 doesn't have the "easy to use" firewall manager like SBS server and it took me the better part of 2 days to figure it out and feel confident that it was set up correctly.

In short, the hardware difference required by MS alone will cost thousands more than SME, not to mention the software itself.  However, if money is no object, then go with all the bells and whistles that MS offers.

If you need/want all the little things that only Exchange does then you really have no choice but remember to dig deep (really deep) into the bosses wallet

[imcintyre]

Yersin;

For reliability, look at this post; http://forums.contribs.org/index.php?topic=36026.0

I have also made good use of being able to swap disks between machines, i.e. I wanted to upgrade my hardware, took my 2 disks out of old machine, put it into new one, turned it on and away it went. Very useful if you try out on a spare machine and then try/need to go to more horespower.I don't think this ever works with Windows.

[pfloor]

[...] I don't think this ever works with Windows.

Never has, never will

[BartManInNZ]

Never has, never will

It does now under vmware 

[zatnikatel]

You can compare published system requirements:

For SME: http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:Documentation:Administration_Manual:Chapter4#4.1._Minimum_Hardware_Requirements

Minimum (I would not recommend this):
400 MHz Processor
256 Meg Ram

Recommended:
1.5 GHz Processor
512 Meg Ram

For Exchange-2007 on *Server-2008x64: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx
(*Note: Full version Exchange 2007 will not run on 32 bit OS)

Minimum:
64 bit Processor
2 Gig Ram


If you need/want all the little things that only Exchange does then you really have no choice but remember to dig deep (really deep) into the bosses wallet

you are not wrong MS stuff is a memory hog the more ram you though at it will just keep useing it
scalix is not a bad exchange replacement but i wish it used postfix and not sendmail

[yersin]

You can compare published system requirements:

So, is there a direct relationship between system requirements and performance? I'd appreciate it if comparisons are made with IIS too, since I'm mainly using SME Server as a web server.
Thanks.

[zatnikatel]

So, is there a direct relationship between system requirements and performance? I'd appreciate it if comparisons are made with IIS too, since I'm mainly using SME Server as a web server.
Thanks.

apache is about 80% IIS is a lot less

[the-heck]

SME vs M$ -- very easy decision on the part of investors

SME vs other Distros - three words: easy, simple, effective

Stability - Linux have proven that a long way back. However, point of view of investors will change when discussing warranty and support.  Mission-critical business aspect, in large scale, is a different story.

Why? - because millions of minds can never be wrong

[zatnikatel]

Also point out Linux is Unix and Unix has been around since the 1960's and support wise there is novel redhat and most people don't think of this distros but mandriva has support as well and they are much cheaper than redhat
SME need some sort of support setup and it would go like hot cakes

[Smitro]

My 2c, for what it's worth.

I run SME from home as an after hours job that I can make a little bit of money here and there. I run several websites on it for people, and run mail and a couple of other small services. It just runs and runs.. I once had an uptime of 282days, until I learnt about the problems that you can have if you don't keep your system up to date with security patches. Now I update when there is updates waiting.

My day job sees me working with several M$ Server 2003 boxes. I think the major differences I see is:
- The cost, we have to pay for most software. We haven't even gone with Exchange because of its cost.
- SME is so much easier to administer. Through the Server Manager you can do most things. We can spend a fair while on a M$ box trying to find where they put stuff.
- It's also easier having less options in your face. On a M$ box to setup another website can take a fair amount of work, ticking and un ticking boxes. Then lining up IP addresses so they can be seen on the outside world getting the DNS right etc.

I have setup an SME box at a school I help out with. The reason I went with SME was firstly because they didn't have the money for Server 2003, secondly, they wouldn't know how to operate Server 2003, and they don't have an onsite tech. SME can be administered by any tech savy person that knows how to use a website.

Why I chose SME over Distros - I've used others, and there is nothing I've seen that out of the box, just works with as many options etc as SME. Esspecially the mail server, I've never seen a mail server so easy to get up and running.

Cons - You can't run several SME boxes at once all using the same DB for user and group information. If I was to use this on a bigger scale I'd like to be able to run a couple of login servers over a campus. Also the option of separating a couple of services onto different boxes like Web, Proxy, and Mail. But in saying this. If the box is powerful enough (no some old piece of resurrected scrap) it will handle all these services on one box no worries.

[raem]

Smitro

You can't run several SME boxes at once all using the same DB for user and group information. If I was to use this on a bigger scale I'd like to be able to run a couple of login servers over a campus.

You/the school could consider financially sponsoring Charlie Brady to do the development work to make this happen, and I'm sure if substantial enough funding was promised then others would also contribute sponsorship cash.

Also the option of separating a couple of services onto different boxes like Web, Proxy, and Mail.

This functionality already exists in sme server, you just have to configure it appropriately using the server manager panels and/or db commands.

But in saying this. If the box is powerful enough (no some old piece of resurrected scrap) it will handle all these services on one box no worries.

Agreed, powerful hardware is cheap, so give the one box enough power (& bandwidth) and it would upscale quite well to handle large networks/heavy loads.

[Smitro]

You/the school could consider financially sponsoring Charlie Brady to do the development work to make this happen

I would be interested in this, and I'm sure others would be. We don't have a "bounty page" as such do we? I don't know if I personally could put in all the money, but some others may be able to help. I know SME has saved me a lot of $$$'s in the past, so I'm willing to help out.

[raem]

Smitro

I would be interested in this, and I'm sure others would be.

I assume the best approach would be to contact Charlie directly, his email address can be found on bugzilla posts. Discuss costing etc with him and then post back to these forums asking for additional cash sponsorship for the specific project, and see if you can generate enough income to fund the development to completion.
Charlie may have other ideas of course.

[p-jones]

like case studies not information from a little guy

I think there are more than enough "little guys" here to make up a "big guy"

I think you should be considering the 'lean & mean" approach of SME vs the the MS "Bulkware" approach.

I note that Microsoft is the predominantly considered competition here. Dont forget Novell and dont overlook the fact that Novell aquired SuSe Linux to spread its wings into this area. Novell still has a strong and significant position in the upper end market. A number of Novell features sit on Apache/Tomcat , both of which had there beginings in the Linux arena.

[yersin]

apache is about 80% IIS is a lot less

Sorry, 80% what?