RFG's study, "Total Cost of Ownership for Linux Web Servers in the Enterprise," compares the TCO of Linux to Solaris and Windows. Robinson compared the cost of "processing units" -- the number of servers that would be required to process 100,000 hits per day, and tracked the costs over three years. Linux supporter IBM commissioned the RFG research for the study paper. Robinson compared Red Hat Linux 7.3 running Apache to Solaris running Apache, and to Windows running IIS. The comparison was all on x86 architecture, using a relatively small sample of 14 companies running mission-critical Web servers. The study found that Windows needed an average of 7.6 servers for a processing unit, Linux needed 7.4, and Solaris needed 2.2. The software purchase costs per processing unit varied greatly. Linux had a one-time software purchase cost of $400, with most surveyed companies buying a few copies to test different distributions of Linux and then using the free download version on most servers. Solaris had a one-time cost of $27,500 per processing unit, and Windows' up-front cost was $5,320, with a total licensing cost of $7,980 over three years. Hardware and maintenance costs were nearly the same for Windows and Linux; Solaris cost about 10 times more. In the area where Microsoft expects to pull ahead -- server admin costs -- the results are what Microsoft would expect, according to Robinson. In the survey, Linux admin salaries were slightly higher than Windows admins, with Linux at $71,400 per admin, and Windows at $68,500 per admin. But Linux admins took care of an average of 44 servers and Windows admins an average of 10. So the salary per processing unit was Linux, $12,010, and Windows, $52,060. "And finding Linux experience is not difficult anymore," Robinson noted. "Most of the customers told us that their Solaris admins basically picked it up and worked with it within a couple of weeks." Support savings
The RFG study also looked at system support costs. Among the companies surveyed, the study found few that were paying for Linux support; instead they used free support online. Obviously, commercial support options would add to the Linux TCO equation. According to the study, the three-year cost of a 100,000-hit processing unit was significantly different among the systems:
- Solaris: $561,520
- Windows: $190,662
- Linux: $74,475
Robinson also noted that keeping up with Microsoft's licensing requirements -- and with the hackers that consistently target Windows -- will add to the Windows cost. He included those issues in his "soft" costs section but didn't have enough data to work them into his numbers, he explained. "Personally, I'm not finding Windows to be less expensive to administer, but those security holes -- that'll kill 'em," he said. IDC's Gillen hasn't conducted a comparison between Windows and Linux recently, but it produced a white paper for Red Hat (a leading Linux vendor) last February comparing Linux to RISC/Unix. That paper suggested Linux provides a 1.8:1 cost advantage over RISC/Unix for Internet/intranet/extranet workloads, and a 5.5:1 cost advantage for collaborative workloads. Making the system choice
In determining the most cost-effective system for their enterprise, Gillen suggested that CIOs do three important things before choosing Linux:
- Consider in-house expertise: More experience with a particular OS means less downtime, Gillen noted. "If you can build a more stable, more reliable configuration, I don't care what the operating system is. If you can take operating system A and make it more stable, more reliable than operating system B, however you do it, your TCO is going to be positively impacted by that higher uptime."
- Think about costs in the long term: "Don't look at it as, 'I need to get to this platform because it has better TCO.' That may be true, but there's a return on investment consideration also," explained Gillen. If you're on a Windows environment, and you're looking at Linux and thinking, 'this is really great, I've got to get to Linux,' remember that there's a fair amount of investment in moving your application technology. "You've got a really significant investment just to get to that other environment. You need to understand what that ROI is going to be to get there and will the TCO benefit over time make up the difference."
- If it works, don't jump to fix it: Ripping out a system is really big news, noted Gillen. For example, he said OpenVMS is still running in many places because it solves a business need, and because admins understand the environment, they have good reliability and scalability. "There's no benefit for them to move. If it works, leave it alone. That's really the way people have to look at things."
Have your say instantly in the
Tech Update forum. Find out what's where in the new Tech Update with our
Guided Tour. Let the editors know what you think in the
Mailroom.
Tech Update forum. Find out what's where in the new Tech Update with our
Guided Tour. Let the editors know what you think in the
Mailroom.
