Which do you prefer, Redhat or FreeBSD? i can't make up my mind which one to use :(

Also list your reasons if possible.

The question is wrong -- comparing Redhat and BSD is like comparing "Honda Civics" with "sports cars". Presuming that you mean FreeBSD (since Open and Net are both somewhat unsuited to web serving)...

Definitely go with FreeBSD. It is more stable and has better performance under extreme loads; more importantly, it is designed with stability and correctness as primary concerns. The metadata debate exemplifies this: While FreeBSD updates filesystem metadata synchronously or semi-synchronously, Linux updates it entirely asynchronously... giving linux as much as a 10% edge in performance on heavily disk-intensive tasks, at the expense of being able to destroy an entire disk of data upon a system crash. (Under FreeBSD, because metadata is updated carefully, in the worst case the last few seconds of data could be lost). Other examples of the "raw performance" vs. "stability and correctness" arise in the virtual memory systems, as well as the network stacks.

You don't run a web server using overclocked processors; you shouldn't run a web server using an operating system designed with stability and correctness as afterthoughts.

(For the record, all the above applies equally well to mysql vs. postgresql; mysql performs better in many situations, but only by sacrificing such important elements as atomic database updates, stability across system crashes, etc.)

I voted both...

either are good for hosting. RH/Linux in general are good platforms long as you keep them udated and patched. of course the same goes for any of the bsd os'es...

I personally would prefer to run freebsd (it's usually a bit more stable and scalable) but since my server admin knows linux i use rh6.2...

FreeBSD really out-voted redhat, amazing 10/2

Regards,
HostEXP

I second cperciva's post, to follow up only on a few important administration points:

FreeBSD is extremely easy to manage. Everything is very organized, the ports are absolutely fantastic (they install from source, not just fat binaries) and are customizable with whatever settings you need to add or remove to the configure string (yay!). Updating the kernel couldn't be easier. It only takes a few keystrokes and a reboot. The easier the server is to manage and administer, the easier your job is, the more time you have for other important tasks.

Linux (Red Hat) on the other hand has config files spread all over the place. Some locations of some config files don't make sense. It isn't centralized and it's a pain in the butt to administer. The only other Linux that I am satisfied with is Slackware. I still do not like its config orientations that much, and administration isn't as easy (to me) as FreeBSD, but if I had to use Linux, Slack is what I would use. It doesn't hold your hand like Red Hat tends to do.

It doesn't matter how secure or insecure a default installation is if the administrator knows what he is doing and does his part in securing the box with patches and common knowledge. What matters is the guts of the OS and how it likes to be managed. For those alone, FreeBSD blows Red Hat (specifically) out of the water.

That's only my opinion though. :)

Well as being a NT guy and owning a hosting co. and having to pay admins to run *nix servers most of the time.. I have to say they like FreeBSD much better.. Over the years i think i like FreeBSD much better as well as it does not wake me up because it crased for some nutty reason... :)
FreeBSD RULES...

I like RH and BSD.

I voted Both, but I just want to clarify what I mean by Both:

Personally, for an all-purpose server, I would go RedHat. If, however, you are going to split tasks up to different boxes, here's what I would choose:

Webserving: RedHat (Apache)
Email: RedHat (Qmail)
DNS: FreeBSD (TinyDNS)
Firewall: FreeBSD (ipfilter)
Database: Either (mySQL and/or PostgreSQL)

Someone commented about the config files being all over the place in RedHat. I suppose this is true, but when you've been using RH for several years this really isn't much of an issue. I find it easier to find things on RH than I do under FreeBSD, only because I've used RH longer.

Anyway, in a perfect world I'd have FreeBSD for DNS and firewalling, with everything else on RedHat. MySQL would probably be on RedHat, though I haven't used it on BSD yet for comparison; I'm just familiar with MySQL on Linux.

End result is use what you're comfortable with. If you know RedHat inside-out and know very little FreeBSD (and considering you lumped it all together as "BSD"...), go with RedHat. A solid OS is no help if you don't know how to quickly resolve problems when they do come up.

I think RedHat is more developed for webhosting then BSD.
More tools are out for Redhat then BSD, like cpanel.

Cpanel is buggy and not a solid program

We are running Plesk 2 on BSD and it rocks, so i dont buy that

Joe

Originally posted by Palm
I think RedHat is more developed for webhosting then BSD.
More tools are out for Redhat then BSD, like cpanel.

He isn't asking you to 'buy it' :D, nor did he say there aren't *any* tools or cp's out there for BSD. I think of BSD in terms of Windows and Mac for home use. More programs are written for Windows systems, but that doesn't mean you can't find a Mac program to do what you need to do. It just means you might not be able to use the same program. More people run, can administer, fix, etc. Windows systems, though that doesn't mean nobofy is using Macs, nor that you won't be able to find someone to fix it, run it, etc.

http://www.defcon1.org/html/Software_Articles/Commands-Flags/cvsup-build/VNC/choose-fbsd.html

It is widely known that FreeBSD can handle file and socket I/O operations much more efficiently than Linux. It is also widely known that a load on a FreeBSD machine can often be as much as half of the load on a Linux machine; meaning a FreeBSD load of 1.00 often translates to a 1.50-2.00 load in Linux. Now, I'm not saying it happens in all situations, but I'm using it as an example on how FreeBSD can handle much more of a load than Linux can.

All of this translates into BSD being more optimal for a hosting environment. It can handle Web Serving extremely efficiently, and MySQL operations are handled quickly and efficiently as well. Bundle FreeBSD with a SCSI disk and you've got some very fast file I/O operations going on -- great for things like UBB. I often get customers that come from a server running Linux (Red Hat of course) that were kicked off for using too much of the CPU. When we place them on our FreeBSD machine for testing, during peak times, I don't notice much of a load difference, definitely not enough to lose a customer over.

Using the perfect world example from above, everyone would run BSD servers and leave Linux for home use. :) I understand a lot of people are comfortable with Linux, especially Red Hat, and they prefer it over anything else (because they are used to it). To those I only say: give FreeBSD a fair shake at administration. You'll see how much easier and centralized everything is. I just can't explain it.

As far as which one is more suitable for hosting, I think FreeBSD wins in the stability dept, at least Yahoo and Hotmail never had a problem with it.

Those two sites alone prove that FreeBSD is a very Stable and HighPreformance Webserver long before Linux was even much of an option...

As far as which one is best, I think that comes down to what you want in a server, ease of use, more control panels, performance at all costs, ect..,

I wonder why Pair Networks uses FreeBSD.

I prefer RedHat Linux, a lot more then FreeBSD although I will defintely agree that FreeBSD is better in some ways for security..

Redhat has been the #1 choice because of the ease of usage..


FreeBsd / Debian / SuSe have been on the rise

FreeBSD does require you do have some clue and i have seen even the best of them get hacked with FreeBSD.

Suse is pretty impressive, riser FS options on install and a very nice support that comes along with it.

Debian is also very solid/ same as slackware, it depends on the crowd that you hang out with.

Don`t choose an OS just because it`s cool, choose what you can handle.

Either way good luck :)

Thanks for all your opinions and information. I have chosen FreeBSD.

Regards,
HostEXP

Originally posted by Hostexp
Thanks for all your opinions and information. I have chosen FreeBSD.


Now that you've got that right, which mail daemon are you going to use? Sendmail, Postfix, Exim, qmail, or something else entirely?

For all the holy wars over operating systems, I think there are far more regarding mail daemons.