If You Build It, Will They Use Linux?

Question

If You Build It, Will They Use Linux?

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 736494
More actions
September 22, 2023 at 12:00 am

#4273939

Comments posted to this topic are about the item If You Build It, Will They Use Linux?

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

sean redmond SSCertifiable Points: 5825 More actions · Answer 1

It's only worth the savings in licence costs if you have sysadmins who are au-fait with Linux, otherwise it is downright dangerous.

And then there are the other services that run on Windows but not on Linux. The lack of Integration Services will be a problem for many. Thankfully SQL Server Agent is supported now. Is replication supported yet?

Linux for SQL Server is a sort of halfway house. To further mix my metaphors, it is neither fish nor flesh. The question also becomes, if Linux is going to be used and you have the people to support it, would it not be better to start off learning PostgreSQL and aim for a transition of the main product within 10 years or so?

keith.bolam 92387 SSC Enthusiast Points: 107 More actions · Answer 2

I have many Linux servers - in fact the only real use of most of the Windows servers I have is to run applications that are windows only and for day to day email and messaging apps.

Terminal access to Linux - and the old Unix/VMS - from a Windows VM is a perfect solution.

the Linux version of SQL Server has not caused any issues in my environment.

I will note here though that the SQL servers are in a minority to the Actian X and Vector databases that I use.

David.Poole SSC Guru Points: 76035 More actions · Answer 3

I don't think we'd get an answer from AWS as to how many of the SQL Server RDS's are on Linux. AWS have their own flavour of Linux too. For a cloud vendor I suspect that cost optimisation, mechanisation and the need to minimise human intervention would push to an almost universal Linux adoption.

Steve, I remember SQL Server on Linux being one of your April fools posts.

I'd be interested to know Microsoft's thoughts on why they went for SQL Server on Linux.

Eat Sybase's lunch?
Defense against an increasingly PostGres/MySQL world?
The needs of Azure?

I think it would make a really interesting podcast/article from Microsoft. Come to think of it I think a series of retrospective podcast/articles on the features that succeeded/failed/got there in the end, would make for interesting reading.

*

LinkedIn Profile

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736494 More actions · Answer 4

sean redmond wrote:

It's only worth the savings in licence costs if you have sysadmins who are au-fait with Linux, otherwise it is downright dangerous.
And then there are the other services that run on Windows but not on Linux. The lack of Integration Services will be a problem for many. Thankfully SQL Server Agent is supported now. Is replication supported yet?
Linux for SQL Server is a sort of halfway house. To further mix my metaphors, it is neither fish nor flesh. The question also becomes, if Linux is going to be used and you have the people to support it, would it not be better to start off learning PostgreSQL and aim for a transition of the main product within 10 years or so?

I do hear from MS that they have customers who want SQL, but their entire infra and expertise is Linux, so that makes sense.

I think SSoL is a good solution. For most of us, we need a core db, and the tooling and admin stuff is really solid in core SQL Server.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736494 More actions · Answer 5

David.Poole wrote:

I don't think we'd get an answer from AWS as to how many of the SQL Server RDS's are on Linux. AWS have their own flavour of Linux too. For a cloud vendor I suspect that cost optimisation, mechanisation and the need to minimise human intervention would push to an almost universal Linux adoption.
Steve, I remember SQL Server on Linux being one of your April fools posts.
I'd be interested to know Microsoft's thoughts on why they went for SQL Server on Linux.
Eat Sybase's lunch?
Defense against an increasingly PostGres/MySQL world?
The needs of Azure?
I think it would make a really interesting podcast/article from Microsoft. Come to think of it I think a series of retrospective podcast/articles on the features that succeeded/failed/got there in the end, would make for interesting reading.
*

I would love to get some answers on these, but because of competition and how others use their words, we often don't get good disclosures from many vendors (or numbers)

dspeterson SSC-Addicted Points: 471 More actions · Answer 6

When I see Microsoft running SQL Managed Instance on Linux I might take a look.

We do totally use linux docker containers for all our development environments and haven't ran into an issues there vs our production environments. Works great even on an M1 mac.

Ryan C. Price Ten Centuries Points: 1184 More actions · Answer 7

A while back, I learnt of the (possibly apocryphal) story of Steve Jobs who, during the development of the original iPhone, was demanding that the software engineers reduce the boot time of the phone by several seconds. The engineers questioned the need to shave "seconds" off the boot time - Steve then set about doing a "back of a napkin" calculation extrapolating the wasted seconds of the millions of future iPhone users, and attached a monetary value to that time, which naturally added up to millions of dollars... The engineers then set about scraping seconds off the boot time...

What's the point of that story?

The problem I, and I suspect many other technical people, have with Linux (which I've been using on-and-off since Slackware came on 20 floppies), is that the developers of admin software in the Linux world do not seem to value the time of the users of their software.

My "day job" is no longer "system admin". But it used to be, so I know how to do most of "the things", I just seldom need to anymore. I do have a dev/test lab using Linux KVM to host a score of Windows VMs. And very few of my customers have their own I.T. department. And so, with some regularity, I find myself performing system admin tasks, if not for myself, then for my customers.

With Windows, without looking for help on the InterWebs, I can easily and quickly configure the network and find management tools for things like storage, users, event logs, file & print services, DNS, DHCP, etc. All with an intuitive, consistent-ish, UI included in the OS.

And if I want to use a command line, all management can be done using PowerShell and well-documented interfaces, with a reasonably consistent interface.

On Linux, however, even just basic configuration of your network is an inconsistent experience needing a reference guide, as different distributions have chosen different generations of "new and improved" network configuration paradigms. There is no consistency in the command-line interfaces for the different admin tools. And good luck finding a consistent graphical-, web-, or even text-based- UI for managing all those things that Windows has been managing seamlessly for 30 years.

There's a lot to like about Linux, but it can also be incredibly frustrating.

And if you're a small company - where you can get away with hiring "some guy" to look after your 10-user Windows network - you'll find looking after a small Linux network much more expensive...

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125562 More actions · Answer 8

I've always thought that Microsoft's investment in Linux had more to do with the technicals of making SQL Server run more efficiently on Docker containers and expanding it's footprint into organizations that have traditionally used Linux and Oracle. I don't think it was in response to any broad public demand for Linux over Windows.

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736494 More actions · Answer 9

I think you're right, Eric, though it likely was 2-3 very large customers that asked.

jasona.work SSC Guru Points: 50118 More actions · Answer 10

I suspect I've got a couple application databases that could be moved to SQL on Linux, they don't use SSIS or SSRS (and, yes, we're still using SSRS) and the only Agent jobs are the backups and integrity checks. But, and it's a BIG but, our team doesn't have anyone versed in Linux (any flavor) and I don't believe our hosting provider (who largely handles the OS side of things,) do either. And my employer REQUIRES people to be certified to support their application / OS.

So, while somewhere in the chain someone could be hired to support Linux, it comes down to the cost / benefit, and it's just not there.

Personally, I've puttered with it some at home, on a VM, just to see how the install went, what behaved differently, what was needed to do certain things, but nothing too in-depth as I'm unlikely to run into a live install of it any time soon.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736494 More actions · Answer 11

jasona.work wrote:

I suspect I've got a couple application databases that could be moved to SQL on Linux, they don't use SSIS or SSRS (and, yes, we're still using SSRS) and the only Agent jobs are the backups and integrity checks. But, and it's a BIG but, our team doesn't have anyone versed in Linux (any flavor) and I don't believe our hosting provider (who largely handles the OS side of things,) do either. And my employer REQUIRES people to be certified to support their application / OS.
So, while somewhere in the chain someone could be hired to support Linux, it comes down to the cost / benefit, and it's just not there.
Personally, I've puttered with it some at home, on a VM, just to see how the install went, what behaved differently, what was needed to do certain things, but nothing too in-depth as I'm unlikely to run into a live install of it any time soon.

I think a large number of instances could be moved. Will they is the more interesting question. I think for the reasons you list, they won't.