Linux.com

Feature: Linux

Comparing Linux and AIX

By Iain Roberts on July 22, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Linux can learn valuable lessons from its elder cousins in the enterprise, the proprietary Unixes from the likes of IBM, Sun, and HP. Those operating systems, in turn, can learn some lessons from Linux. Comparing the features of the more enterprise-ready Linux distros with AIX, one of the leading proprietary Unixes, helps identify some of those lessons.

AIX was developed primarily for administrators, whereas Linux has been developed for and by hackers. Right from the start, a key goal of commercial Unixes is to make things easy for the people running them (though they don't always succeed). Only recently has this been a major factor in the Linux world. Some deficiencies can be fixed with improved tools, while others are more fundamental to the operating systems.

The benefit of proprietary hardware

AIX runs only on IBM's own hardware, based around the POWER family of processors, of which the POWER5 is the latest. (Apple's G5 chip is the baby brother of the POWER4.) Pretty much all the adapters and components that run in those servers are either made or rebadged by IBM. In the past IBM has almost given AIX away, making money from the hardware and services instead of the operating system software.

Using a single hardware architecture removes a big headache for AIX developers. There is no struggling to write device drivers for thousands of obscure devices, for a start. By controlling the hardware platform IBM can offer high-end hardware features such as hot-swap adapters and logical partitioning, not to mention servers where the firmware (equivalent of the BIOS) can be accessed through a Web browser when the server is powered off.

There is a significant price premium for this hardware, but there are great benefits too. CPU and memory are not all that matters (though IBM's latest model comes with up to 512GB of RAM, which should be enough for most people). Many companies are happy to pay more, or sacrifice speed, to improve reliability, availability, and serviceability. If an hour of downtime costs your business tens of thousands of dollars, this is a big deal.

Luckily, Linux is coming to have the best of both worlds. Those who want to take advantage of IBM's fancy hardware features can now run SUSE or Red Hat Linux on just about any server than IBM makes and, with logical partitioning, can even run Linux and AIX on the same server at the same time.

Device management

Linux has always been somewhat clumsy at device management. I often find myself trawling through dmesg and playing "guess the device" to figure out if some device is there and how it has been configured. Whether a particular piece of information about a device is available often seems a matter of luck. A variety of other commands with different syntaxes and outputs help to cobble together an overall picture of the hardware on a system.

AIX is a breath of fresh air in comparison. Devices can be queried easily through a few commands. The syntax for amending device settings is clear and consistent across all devices, and the amount of information available on each device is huge.

If new devices are added to a running system, a single command configures them all and installs device drivers where needed.

On my home PC, with a handful of disks and adapters, maybe I don't need the device information to be so easy to access and update. On an enterprise server with 150 PCI adapters and a few hundred disks, however, it becomes a lot more important to have good accurate information about exactly what and where everything is and what it is all doing.

Systems management

For new and experienced AIX administrators alike, AIX's Systems Management Interface Tool (SMIT) is a useful (and often essential) tool. Think of it as YaST2 with fewer sexy graphics but more functionality. About 80% of administration tasks on an AIX system can be done using SMIT. It's simple, easy to understand, mature, and it works. One nice feature is that it always saves the command or script it has run to a file, so you can do something once in SMIT and then script it thereafter. You can even say "don't do this for real, but log the command you would have run."

AIX also has a Web administration tool which, while slow (accessing via the bundled Windows or Linux PC client speeds it up) and occasionally buggy, is still a long way ahead of anything Linux has to offer. Want to set up ipsec? AIX has a nice wizard that makes it easy.

Linux is improving quickly with systems management, but some developers still seem to feel that if is isn't obscure and complicated, there's something wrong. That's fine for hackers, but companies want to employ administrators to run their systems, not hackers, and administrators like things to be easy, especially when they've got a few hundred systems to manage.

Installation and upgrades

Major OS upgrades are still a weak point for Linux. I've tried upgrades on a number of different Linux distros. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and more often than not, I end up installing from scratch.

In comparison, AIX very rarely has a problem with upgrades, even when jumping several versions. I go into an AIX upgrade confident that it will work, and I go into a Linux upgrade with a feeling that it's 50/50.

For new installations, the picture is more balanced. AIX has few problems with new installs. If Linux has a problem, it's normally with some odd hardware -- not a problem AIX has to deal with, of course. Where AIX falls down is the lack of installation options. Only in the latest version of AIX has it been possible to specify a graphics-free installation, and the ability to choose packages at installation time is very limited.

AIX includes the Network Installation Manager (NIM), which can perform new installations, upgrades, software installation, and a number of other tasks across the network. It is easy to set up (via command line, menu, or wizard) and it works well. Similar tools exist for Linux, but right now they lack some of the functionality.

Security

The proprietary Unixes have traditionally fallen down a little on security, and AIX is no exception. From a commercial perspective it makes sense to not alienate your users, so usability has always taken precedence over security. The last thing IBM or Sun wants is businesses performing upgrades that stop their applications working correctly.

The result of this corporate caution is that a fresh install of AIX has gaping security holes. Services such as telnet, ftp, and rshd are enabled by default. Secure Shell (SSH) and TCP Wrappers aren't even installed (IBM ships both, but on a separate CD). AIX does come with some basic packet filtering, but there's no firewall on by default and it isn't easy to configure. Filesystem and swap space encryption aren't there either.

Compare this to Linux, where SSH is the default, most insecure services are disabled, a wealth of security software is shipped with almost every distro, and much effort has been put into helping users secure their systems.

AIX can be configured securely. IBM has a nice white paper that guides you through a lot of the tasks, but it isn't trivial to do, and the result is that a lot of companies don't, and tools like telnet are still a lot more common than they should be.

Managing disks and filesystems

Disk and filesystem management is an area where AIX is still well ahead of Linux. AIX doesn't have partitions or slices -- it has a logical volume manager instead. Logical volumes and volume groups are fundamentals on AIX, not add-ons.

To show how this can help, let's look at some of the things than can be done on AIX while the system is running normally, all using software.

Data can be mirrored and unmirrored online between any two disks. Want to mirror data between a local SCSI disk and a NAS-attached iSCSI disk of different sizes? No problem. A mirror copy can be broken off to create a "point-in-time" backup of how the system looked at that moment, then re-integrated later on.

Whole filesystems can be moved between disks, or spread out over different disks, all while users carry on oblivious. How about setting up a group of disks and making one a spare, so if another fails the spare automatically takes over, the data being copied over to it? That's simple too.

The OS can even be upgraded on a running system. You can create a copy of the OS disks, upgrade the copy, and then reboot from the upgraded disk; if it doesn't work, just switch back to the old one.

All of these, and more, come standard with the AIX operating system and can be done from simple command lines and menus. By contrast, even something like software mirroring on Linux is complicated in comparison to the one-line AIX commands.

Workload management

A perpetual problem with high-end computers is that they have too much computing capacity. Both Sun and IBM believe that their servers are often no more than 20% utilised. Luckily, all the major vendors have come up with solutions to help customers make effective use of the computing power they've spent so much money on.

Logical partitioning is the flavour of the day, with the ability to split servers up and have multiple instances running. Sun have extended this with its N-1 Grid Containers, effectively an advanced chrooted environment with multiple instances running under the same OS environment.

IBM have achieved a similar result in a slightly different way. With IBM's latest hardware, what looks like a separate computer can run on as little as one-tenth of a CPU, meaning that twenty instances of AIX can run on a dual-processor server. Even better, they can share Ethernet adapters and disks, so there is no need to have hundreds of adapters (though you can if you want to). You can even have your partitions talk to each other over the network adapter, using a virtual switch (with VLAN functionality) held in the server firmware. These partitions do not sit on top of an underlying OS; they run directly on the server.

Most of these functions are available for SUSE and Red Hat Linux on the POWER5 platform too, for those with generous hardware budgets.

Conclusion

Linux has come a long way in the last few years, but for high-end functionality and maturity, the likes of AIX and other high-end Unixes still have a significant edge. When it comes to security, though, Linux is ahead of the game, so the catching up is on the other side.

Iain Roberts is an IT freelancer specialising in Unix and Linux.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Comparing Linux and AIX

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

AIX works also on Bull hardware ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2004 07:15 PM
There is an agreement between bull and ibm. Bull has given the multiprocessors technology long time ago.

#

Re:AIX works also on Bull hardware ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 24, 2004 11:25 AM
We use a Bull system where I currently work and I would just like to say that I've tried to install gcc several times over the last 3 years and have failed everytime. This has really stifled many things I've wanted to do because I couldn't compile the software I needed. I've contacted Bull many times with help, but in the end the task has failed. The next time we buy another AIX box (if that actually happens again) it will not be a Bull system. We will buy direct from IBM. While I know Bull has been around for a very long time and have many happy customers, nothing has ever been easy for me. No more Estrella for me please/thank you.

#

Linux more secure?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2004 08:26 PM
Conclusion: "When it comes to security, though, Linux is ahead of the game, so the catching up is on the other side."

I don't buy this. Just because AIX (or Solaris or HP-UX for that matter) has some less-than-absolutely-secure services enabled by default does not make Linux more secure. The only real edge I'll grant to Linux is the speed at which fixes are available for discovered holes. Any admin that's worth a damn can harden a *nix box and have it remain eminently usable (try that with Windoze). I like Linux as much as the next guy, but I've been a *nix guy long enough to know that it's not the be-all-end-all OS that some protray it to be.

#

Re:Linux more secure?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2004 09:08 PM
I agree that there are a few things that are missing in the "enterprise" arena for complete usability. I have been working with Tru64 since it was Ultrix, and I think that those "usability" features are missing because of a long, long list of software writers that contribute to Linux - it is not easy to coordinate all that software. When everything comes from one vendor, it is somewhat easier to integrate. Of course, it doesn't mean that one should lock in to one vendor - that's the real advantage of Linux over those OSs.

#

Re:Linux more secure?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 12:07 PM
> and have it remain eminently usable (try that
> with Windoze).

Read your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/Advocacy-HOWTO. Going around misspelling competitor's brand names and such is childish.

#

Re:Linux more secure?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2004 09:00 AM
/usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/Advocacy-HOWTO: cannot open '/usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/Advocacy-HOWTO' (No such file or directory)

#

do not agree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2004 09:29 PM
I have used AIX extensively as well as DEC-Unix for the Alpha. I now exclusively use Debian/GNU Linux for both Intel and Alpha machines. I have found Debian to absolutely be the easiest to maintain machine, no doubt whatsoever. IBM provides the most difficult to update machine, period. I have literally given up on IBM machines and sent them to salvage because the updates and security patches were too time consuming and expensive to make it worth the effort. Debian's "apt-get" is an administrator's dream come true for installing and updating software. You obviously have not tried Debian yet.

I have also tried a number of Linux distributions and continue to be open to testing new distributions using vmware. These include Slackware, RedHat, SUSE, Xandros, Progeny, etc. Debian still remains my favorite.

#

Re:do not agree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2004 11:07 PM
That is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article. Especially the part where the author was stating that, going into a linux upgrade, the anticipated chance of success is 50/50. What is the author using? Caldera? Once I install Debian, it's installed for life. I can go from potato, to woody, to sarge, to sid, and beyond with virtually no problems. In fact, the only problems I ever experience in Debian are really my own fault (such as not running an apt-get update prior to installing a package). In the rare event of a problem such as that, I can always step back easily and correct the problem.

#

Re:do not agree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 12:54 AM
Have you ever tried PCLinuxOS? A guy nicked Texstar forked Mandrake 9.2 and created a live installable cd with most of the popular software installed already. It's really geared at being a friendly desktop with great default settings and IMO the best default look. And the few friends that I've shown it to always return to it when they check out other distro's cause PCLOS has that certain something the others just don't have.

Those that are purist probably won't like it. It's really flashy and lots of GUI, but it does everything I throw at it cl wise as any other distro I've used.

Anyways, check it out, you might be suprised.

#

Re:do not agree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 12:59 AM
I should add, that it is a beta distro so it ships with known bugs you have to fix if you install. Nothing big if you know what your doing, but requires some reading if you're new.

#

Re:do not agree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 01:26 AM
I have not tried "PCLinuxOS", but I am sure it is nice. There are nearly 400 known distributions of Linux (ref. www.lwn.net). Some of them are "live CDs" such as the one you describe. Perhaps the most popular of these is "Knoppix" which is Debian-based. The later versions of Knoppix also allow for a direct installation of the working live CD.

I like Debian for the desktop, but for the server (which is where AIX is tailored), it is superb. I routinely login to remote machines from home (using ssh) to perform upgrades to machines. It is literally that easy. Normally, on average, one can spend 1-2 minutes a day per machine and take care of any and all security updates and/or package additions/deletions that need to take place; all from a remote location.

#

Linux md and lvm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 12:05 AM
I wish the article had shown some examples of the functional and complexity differences claimed for the disk handling. I've set up many machines with all partitions mirrored with the linux software raid driver and consider it to be pretty straightforward to break the mirroring, hotswap drives, resync, etc. and Linux LVM looks even better. I'd like to know more about what is missing compared to other systems.

#

Re:Linux md and lvm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 03:25 AM
I've using Linux full time from 2002 (first RH 7.3, the 8, then 9, then Gentoo). I've used soooo many distros, my first was in 1994 -Yggdrasil-.

And, I've using, managing, teaching, AIX from 1998. And... AIX is easier to use, specifically the storage system.

Remember the first LVM code was donated by IBM for Linux.

LVM in AIX is integrated, you boot from a logical volume, in a physical volume, in a volume group. You can expand, move, migrate, reorganize, mirror, unmirror, backup, defrag anything in this OS with the OS tools, anytime, everytime.

I'm a certified AIX instructor contracting for IBM de Colombia. I'm a Linux and Solaris Instructor too.

Ramon Barrios Lascar

#

Good article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 04:14 AM
Well, AIX is nice if you have the money to pay for the hardware.

Having said this, Linux is getting the niceties of the old proprietary unices on x86 hardware.

If the author wants to experience a well-implemented LVM manager in Linux land, he should look at diskdrake in Mandrake. It's the best I have seen in Linux land.

#

Re:Good article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 24, 2004 08:25 AM
Actually, I don't think the author has much experience at all with linux, since linux has had an LVM for MORE THAN FOUR YEARS that rivals,and in certian aspects surpasses that of aix.
And he's obviously never heard of webmin either, when he claims that linux has nothing that even compares to Websm.
Also, if you use nim or hacmp, you HAVE to enable rsh for root, whether you have installed the ssh or not.

#

The p5 and i5 are FREAKING cool...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 10:16 AM
Good article. I had a chance to be in the audience when IBM announced the i5 (which uses the POWER5 chip and can run AIX, Linux, and i5/OS natively, plus Windows with an Intel plugin board). The server not only is the most solid, scalable technology on the planet (I'm a fan, not a salesman), but it has been priced competitively.

#

errors

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 04:30 PM
AIX runs on Intel processors too! it's NOT just POWER. On Linux, devices and driver status are in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/proc and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys.

#

Re:errors

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 06:37 PM
IBM has not had an Intel AIX version since the mid to late 90's. AFAIK, AIX only runs on the Power platform. If you have a link to a current version of AIX on Intel that IBM sells, I would like to see it. Thanks.

#

Re:errors

Posted by: Joe Klemmer on July 23, 2004 08:16 PM
As the other person commented, if you have a link to AIX for x86 I'd love to have it. Dosen't have to be AIX for free, even AIX for $$$ is fine if it'll run on x86.

#

Re: AIX for Itanium

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 09:01 PM
AIX 5L was availble for Itanium (not IA32) as a PRPQ (Programming Request for Price Quotation - IBM term for a non-standard product) as a result of the Monterey project. However, this was withdrawn from marketing on December 17, 2002.

#

webmin

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 04:44 PM
Perhaps the author has not really looked at webmin for web based admin for gnu/linux?

#

AIX vs LINUX

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 07:00 PM
As i started we had a very heterogenous environment,
with AIX to VAX. Now servers run exclusive on linux.
Thats for a reason. AIX is nice but a pain when you
run it in a heterogenous environment. everything
is different. smitty is nice but fails short when
it gets problems.
Linux has some shortcomming when it comes to larger
servers, but feel free to add patches. AIX ?
I dont know anyone how liked AIX outside a pure
AIX env.

just my 2 cents
walter

#

Re:AIX vs LINUX

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 23, 2004 08:54 PM
I will second that statement.
We had to print to an AIX/Infoprint server.
- We had to mess around for a few hours getting the client part to work on a Wintel (eventually got a : printing subsystem is out of resources<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... typical windows...).
- Firewall-ers were telling us the packets were getting thru - although SMIT was denying activity on it's nic.
- Finally I setup a simple LPD : IP\pqueue from Xandros and in seconds I was printing (it was spooling on the Infoprint queue).

So for the maturity part of the AIX - I will withhold judgement until I see more to impress me.
Security-wise, I see _sooo_ many bulletins going around that proprietary UNICES no longer have bragging rights to that.
The last straw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the stability - my home linux systems (proportionnaly as busy as here - without redundancy of hdw, and no clustering)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
I see it as a clean sweep... and we haven't even mention licence fees<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...ahem !

#

AIX vs Linux

Posted by: wpeckham on July 23, 2004 11:20 PM
I have used HP-UX machines, SYS-V machines from AT&T, and (for the last 9 years) AIX machines as well as Linux and Tru64Unix on Alpha. ALL of them are excellent! Linux is the least mature from the standpoint of day to day administrations, but it is catching up fast.
AIX (since version 4 came out) is not only just fine for day to day administration, but also the EASIEST to plan DR for. No reinstallations, licenses, or horsing around, just recover your mksysb and savevg images and go. In my book that is enough ALONE to make it my favorite. My measure of maturity is how easy it is for the business to survive and recover when a tornado has trashed the server room, and the idiot sales VP is the man who has to handle the restore!
I must admit though, when debian gets that easy to admin and DR, I will have a new favorite.

#

NIM - Easy to configure and use?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 24, 2004 05:18 AM
HMMM.... I'd like to disagree with that one...

I've been using Unix (in various flavours) since 1989 and I've been a System Administrator since 1993. I have used SunOS, Solaris 2, HP-UX, AIX, Linux, ConvexOS, and a few others.

I've been dealing with Large Unix systems for at least half of that time.

Linux is very good at what it does, but it doesn't have the administrative tools that AIX and HP-UX have. That's not to say that it's not catching up.

What I take issue with is the comment that NIM is easy to install and configure. I've spent the last five hours trying to get a server to boot one partition across the network (that partition does not have a CDROM drive, and I can't add one.) NIM seems to be set up fine, but the server refuses to boot. It either gets a file that it claims is in the wrong format, or it can't see the NIM server.

So, while NIM seems to work well for some updates, in this case, it sucks big time.

Z.

#

AIX is mature

Posted by: serpentine on August 26, 2004 11:15 AM
As with any software that has had billions thrown behind it (except apparently MS software), the code becomes better.

IBM has done an awesome job of building it's own flavor of UNIX. They have done that by having building blocks of "certified" hardware that you can order.

In other words, you can't stick a 3Com ethernet card into an IBM RS/6000 and hope it works. You have to order the much more expensive IBM "certified" and "branded" option.

But, what you get from that money$$ is a guarantee that IBM's option will work 99.5% of the time. That's kind of important in an enterprise environment when you are doing upgrades on a Sunday night/Mon. morning during your window of 11:30PM-1AM.

Linux still struggles with that portion of it's admin stuff. Linux has done a pretty good job of trying to detail out by distro what cards will and will not work. They just are not there yet with a guarantee like IBM's, Sun's, HP's that if you stick card A from us in the server, IT WILL WORK, NO PROBLEM.

The good news is that it looks like enough major companies like IBM are throwing support behind Linux to enable it to become a true *NIX.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya