Dedicated Linux Servers Using Other Than Red Hat?

morzel asks: "I've been looking on the internet to rent a dedicated Linux server to perform some back-up tasks for DNS/SMTP and perhaps some minor WEB/FTP. There are a lot of options out there, from $99/month deals to over a grand a month. What amazed me is that in almost every shop, 'Red Hat' is virtually a synonym of 'Linux'. And even if there are different choices, it's basically 'Red Hat 6.2 or Red Hat 7.0'. I for one would like another distribution to be on my production machines (like Slackware), but are there shops out there that can give me that?"

"Since the initial setup of the machines is being done by the hosting admin team, it's very important that they know their way around in the distribution I want, and that they can support me when I screw up big time doing maintenance on that machine. (I do think I'm competent enough to manage without getting in trouble, but these things tend to happen nevertheless <grin!>)

Basically it boils down to me wanting:

• Good quality connectivity
• A greater choice in Linux distributions (Just slack is fine by me, but it's interesting to know if there are other options as well)
• quality support (both in the initial installation, as well as afterwards)
• Possibly added services (back-ups, monitoring)
• A reasonable pricetag for all of the above - mind you, I don't necessarily want the cheapest around, but it has to be payable.

So, what are your experiences with dedicated Linux server providers that offer more choice than Red Hat? Which ones are good, which ones should I steer clear of? What are your experiences on running a Slackware/SuSE/Debian/[insert fav. dist. here] server on the other side of the planet? All information (including blatant plugs) is very welcome!"

Slackware Hosting

[Mephistopholies]

I found some sites that do use Slack for hosting but I can't give a testemonial about how good they are, since I have not used them personally.
I just did a Server Hosting Slackware Linux [google.com] and came up with some results.
Cybercon [cybercon.com] gives a choice of what os you can run one choice being Slack.
Also Redan [redan.net] also gives a choice of OS to run. But it seems to only be Slack 3.6 maybe they just haven't updated it in a while.
itconnect.co.nz [itconnect.co.nz] seems to only use Slack.
And i2net [i2net.net] turns up a hit but upon searching thier site I can't find anything about Slack. I assume there are more choices there on google but I started feeling lazy and stopped looking. Hope that helps..

own experience...

[ndfa]

funny you mention Slackware.... good to hear more ppl. are using it still. Well when i joined my current job it was pretty much a NT shop, everthing was running one way or another from a few NT boxes... well not anymore, cause we now GOT SLAK! I have a box running DNS/DHCP, Oracle 8.1.16 running on another dual Xeon box, and cvs running on another. A few of the other engineers have also moved over to the linux, Redhat and Mandrake, but hey its a start.... Have had almost no troubles over the past 5 months with any of the boxes. A few patches, and a bit of a mess getting Oracle installed but some of the NON_LINUX ppl are quiet impressed with the fact that one all three of the boxes supporting development have had almost no downtime. The CVS server needs to have inetd get a SIGHUP from time to time, but other than that things are sweet.
A FEW other things about COLO's, they are over rated and dont really get you all they say! We have had a bad time with the SLA being kinda bad as far as upgradablity and its pretty exp. if you want just the basics! RTF SLA i guess :)

Cant wait to get back to work next year, have an ultra 10 just begging for the current-release of Slackware for sparc....happy hacking

Co-lo?

[joedumb]

you could just build a cheap machine and load it up with your fav. distro/os and have it colocated somewhere.

Re:Co-lo?

[SUWAIN]

Actually, co-lo seems to cost more than dedicated hosting - you can save money by having them provide the machine to you... ?!

...............
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name

VMware

[SUWAIN]

I've been known to propose VMware [vmware.com] as solutions to various programs... I've never actually used it extensively, though I've used a couple demos.

Essentially, it creates a virtual machine. It was 'designed' to let you run Linux under Windows and vice versa. (They have two different versions - one to run on Windows, and one to run on Linux.) However, you are not tied to running the opposite - I am considering getting the version for Linux (since that's what I use) and putting multiple Linux distros on it.

So, essentially, you can buy VMware (they seem to have a new server edition; don't quite understand the added features), and run Slackware, Debian, or whatever under the RedHat they force you to use... Or, you could opt for Windoze (if you think viewers will like the blue "color scheme" that occurs frequently...), or even another *nix. I think BeOS is possible, too...

Again, I've never actually used it much, so I don't know if it's the type of thing I want powering my webserver.

...............
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name

Re:VMware

[Beowulf_Boy]

Sorry dude, But you can;t do that
If you read VMwares Readme it says you can not run the same OS in the VM as the one the VM is running on.
And anyways, it would be insane to run VMware, because it would run so slow (I had windows running under it and took twice as long as normal just to boot up.)

Power PC

[Captain Scarlet22]

Well for sometime time now Power PC have been put away into the closet. Yes there were early version of Linux for Power PC(MAC), but nothing worth the hassle. I belive LinuxPPC 2000 and YellowDog Linux really changed things for the Mac. And they really use Red Hat. I have only one other main line option and thats Corel. I have installed 3 or 4 LinuxPPC servers and they all run LinuxPPC 2000. And to me I don't care if I have many different types to choose, I just want one that works and is very stable for my Macs. And I've done a few Intel with running all Red Hat. My only question is this...Can the other guys make it better??? Because you can always recompile the kernel.........

Re:Co-lo?

[morzel]

Co-lo is in most cases more expensive, and not worth the trouble except if you have very specific needs.

If you co-lo your machine you:

have to buy the machine

are responsible for the hardware maintenance, or an SLA is needed with the hosting company (mucho $$$)

Choice is quite limited - basically it needs to be nearby.

In my case (I live in Belgium, Europe), co-lo and hosting are still more expensive than in the US. I don't want to ship a machine to the other side of the planet, and hope that it gets installed properly. I want the hosting shop to be responsable for the HW, so that they can replace that fried NIC, without me coördinating everything.

Co-lo is an option, but it's not always the perfect answer.

Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.