Article

1

Why I Choose CentOS for a Server

Written by mike from http://beginlinux.com on November 18th, 2008 | 8 Comments

There are many options available for Linux distros, over 500.  Most of them you can make into a server.  Basically, a server is a computer that provides services for other computers, like a web site, or DHCP or ftp download, etc.  So it does not take much for a computer to act as a server.  However, if you are looking for the professional level server that, in my opinion, leads all other distros in functioning as a server then you need to investigate CentOS.  Here is a list of the reasons that CentOS is top on my list for a server.

Interested in CentOS Training?
Live Virtual Classes
CentOS Manuals with Labs
CentOS on Disk

1. Origins
Where a Linux distro came from is an important part of what it is.  CentOS is built from the source code of Red Hat Enterprise.  This means that when you choose CentOS you will also receive the history, philosophy and aspects of Red Hat Enterprise.  I can remember the early versions of Red Hat, a distro growing with popularity but still just another distro.  However, when Red Hat made the decision to create an Enterprise version it changed everything.  The focus of Red Hat became the server, in fact they really do not even talk about the desktop as the oply option offered is a server.  So you have the source of CentOS with one focus, building the best enterprise server world wide.

2. Stability
Each distribution has its own philosophy, for CentOS (here you must always assume the origin of Red Hat), the requirement is for an operating system that is stable.  Stability means providing an operating system that does not have bugs in the software.  In order to eliminate bugs in software you need to use code that you can modify, in other words Open Source code.  Using only Open Source code will not provide you with the opportunity  to use the latest and greatest hardware as drivers may not be available for it.  This can be frustrating when you know that there are drivers available but they are not installed because they cannot be modified.  For me I can accept this as I want stability more than anything else.  The second aspect of stability is that code must be tested over an extended period of time.  This results in drivers being available at a later date that what other distros provide.  This however, is the cost of stability.

3. Security
Have you put a server online lately?  In less than 10 minutes it is under attack.   It only makes sense to use an operating system that is secure and is on the cutting edge of security.  Security is built from several keys issues in a distro.  First, security is built from using stable code.  Yep, the two are closing related.  Bugs in code often leads to security issues. Secondly, security is built upon decisions upon the file system and how it is structured.  One thing that you will find with CentOS you have almost all of the content for web server, FTP, databases, mail, logs ….  almost all of the public content is  located in the /var directory.  The major exception is the users for Samba.  This provides clear thinking on partitions, backups, and resources. A major factor in security is the use of SELinux.  CentOS (really Red Hat) is the leader world wide in the use of SELinux.  Yes I know it is overly complicated and hard to use and manage, but in my mind that is the price we all pay in terms of security today.   SELinux is much more mature than AppArmor which has a dubious future ( developers are working for Microsoft now).  SELinux is where CentOS is betting the farm, they (meaning Red Hat) spent a tremendous amount of money, time and resources on integrating SELinux throughout the operating system.  Often people do not realize that in order to use a product like SELinux yoiu must modify the entire operating system and rewrite the commands so they will work with the extended attributes.  Ubuntu and other distros say SELinux is available but what they do not tell you is that you can only use some features because the distro does not have a commitment to SELinux.  Therefore, as far as I know, there is only one Linux distro that can use SELInux to it’s full extent and that is CentOS (Red Hat).

4. Professional Server Install
Unlike other distros, CentOS comes installed with the professional features you need for a server.  These features include: ACLs, LVM2, raid tools with mdadm, SELinux and many other smaller features.  Linux distros that do not install these features by default really are not committed to the professional server.  What server admin wants an install with LVM today and not version 2 (LVM2)?  It is just not acceptable if you are going to use the Logical Volume Management.  Access Control Lists are an important feature that provides an administrator the option to give various levels of access to a file or folder to a number of users.  The mdadm command is an important tool in building and maintain RAID, but in other distros you have to download and install it.  This is what administrators need to get the job done.  Anyway, this is just my opinion but I think admins want a professional install they can count on.

Now I have used Red Hat and CentOS for close to 10 years now.  I have also set up a lot of other servers on SUSE, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.  These other distros have some positive aspects no doubt, but when I need an install I can count on for years…I always turn to CentOS.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

One Response to “Why I Choose CentOS for a Server”

  1. fede

    “there is only one Linux distro that can use SELInux to it’s full extent and that is CentOS (Red Hat)”
    …and Fedora of course.

  2. Ian Woodstock

    So what’s your reason for choosing CentOs rather than Red Hat - is it cost?

  3. dino

    OpenBSD is even better when considering these three arguments, so I would clearly point in that direction as well.

  4. Jack

    A comparison between CentOS and Debian from you perspective would be helpful, since Debian stable is another rock solid OS that many swear by for server use.

  5. Bryan J Smith

    Couple of comments (all based on first-hand knowledge, not hearsay) …

    Regarding … “The focus of Red Hat became the server, in fact they really do not even talk about the desktop as the oply option offered is a server.”

    This is utterly FALSE. Red Hat’s CEO has repeatedly stated they will NOT pursue the “home” desktop market as a commercial product (e.g., Jim Whitehurst’s “we do not believe home consumers should ever have to pay for software”). However, they have always provided an “enterprise” WS/Workstation/Client version. Just because CentOS uses RHEL AS/Advanced Server/Advanced Platform as their basis does not mean other editions do not exist for “enterprise” desktop needs.

    Red Hat has several, major customers with 4-5 figures of RHEL 5 Client deployed, and is actively pursuing many approaches in RHEL 5 updates and forthcoming RHEL 6 developments that will continue to make “enterprise” desktop inroads.

    Regarding … “Stability”

    It’s not merely about drivers. Red Hat spends the first 3-3.5 years of any RHEL release updating drivers and adding select features. Since RHEL is already based on a Fedora release a rev or two old by the time it hits, that’s a good 4 years of driver updates that are backported. What you’re thinking of is sticking with older, core components. GCC, GLibC, X11, core libraries, etc… the lack of newer libraries and compatibility with newer open source packages/software, etc… Red Hat backports updates, affixed to its strict, 7+ year API/ABI, instead of focusing on features.

    Novell does this with the SLES and other lines. Canonical’s Ubuntu LTS is currently addressing this (to varying levels of certification). Debian has a solid history as well, which is notable given its development model and community different than Canonical, Novell or Red Hat.

    Regarding … “SELinux is much more mature than AppArmor”

    This isn’t really the argument. SELinux is “different” than AppArmor — “better” in the eyes of many (including myself), but not really about “maturity” (although your comments on AppArmor’s “active developers” are close to hitting home). Red Hat’s attitude, which matches that of the NSA and quite a bit of the “meritocracy-based management” in the Fedora Project that incubated this, is that if you’re going to do Access Controls, well darn it, do REAL Mandatory Access Controls (MAC) and Role Based Access Controls (RBAC).

    The resulting EAL Level 4 certification with 3 specialities, including RBAC, on RHEL 5 isn’t just impressing the US Federal government and NATO, but has the Russians and Chinese believe in it as well.

    Regarding … “Professional Server Install”

    I think that’s more personal choice. A lot of us love the RHEL approach for our own reasons, experiences, etc… But I really wouldn’t argue that other distros don’t do this in comparison to RHEL.

  6. Jeremy

    Good write up.
    I have been using CentOS for the past 5 years on web servers, and the past 3 years as my main desktop.
    I also chose a Red Hat based distro simply due to the history and quality/security behind RH.

    While some distros are more desktop centric, I prefer to keep with the same OS.

    I have heard that the BSDs are just as (if not more) secure, but have not yet had the time to devote quality time to learning/evaluating one yet.

  7. pawpawyoung

    Nice article, I like CentOS, too.

  8. john

    Install Debian and you’ll be amazed with the options you get given.
    Loads of packages.

    Whereas in centos you get only what they have prepared for you.
    I don’t understand why some people fuss over centos.
    The number of packages is just a fraction of Debian’s.

Leave a Reply

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up