CentOS Reviews

We use CentOS whenever we can to help bridge services or to add another layer to our infrastructure. We currently use CentOS for monitoring orientated tasks, but it has been our chosen distribution for our enterprise for a few years.

It allows us to freely use and test open-source technologies and solutions. Without it we wouldn't have a server monitoring system, log management system, or many other services that we depend on.

It has minimal updates compared to other distributions. We like the idea of long-term support. CentOS gives us a peace of mind when it comes to updates. It's also a bonus that most of our vendor supported hardware/software is built with CentOS under the hood, allowing us to stay in the Fedora ecosystem.

You're getting what you expect (a linux distro). The wizard has gotten better through the years, so maybe they could build more options into the wizard. However, we have scripts that we deploy to overcome this.

Three to six years.

I don't believe an update has broken anything in our environment. It's very stable and that's the reason CentOS was chosen.

Yes and no. In regards to the OS itself, there aren't any scalability issues. We have run into issues with other applications but that's not the fault of CentOS, rather, it is the application that would need to be revised.

We've used Ubuntu in the past for various systems and projects, and once in a while, a vendor uses it for their platform. We don't care for the more aggressive updates, and we usually don't need the most updated packages.

Straightforward. We deploy with the minimal options, and the wizard is very easy to navigate to help install it. We also have a script that we run to make this process much easier.

In-house for anything related to CentOS.

We don't track ROI.

You can pay for the support if you purchase Red Hat. We don't have the need for that just yet, and CentOS satisfies our needs when needed (assuming we can support it in-house).

When it comes to Linux, we've tried the Debian route before. Trying both Debian and Ubuntu, we settled on CentOS once we noticed that the enterprise market was going in that direction. It proved to be a wise choice.

If you had to choose a Linux distribution for enterprise grade stability, then this would be the logical choice. If you want latest features and fast deployment of updates, then you might want to take a look at Ubuntu.

The simplicity of the Desktop & Server platforms and the availability of multiple repositories of apps and tools.

We use CentOS together with Apache for certificate verification. The platform has helped us to keep things simple and yet very secure, allowing us to meet the requirements with surgical precision.

I've found certain issues where I couldn't find any documentation to help me solve them. But I guess it's a case by case situation where popular problems have a lot of chatter about how to resolve, whereas certain problems don't have as much.

Daily use for a little over a year.

None so far.

Didn't have the opportunity to go to a bigger scale, since our business was just starting out.

Haven't had the chance to use it.

No. We started and created our solution around CentOS.Not at all complex. Anybody with basic Linux knowledge can install the server and almost anybody can easily install the desktop and get themselves familiar with it over a week

Not at all complex. Anybody with basic Linux knowledge can install the server and almost anybody can easily install the desktop and get themselves familiar with it over the course of a week.

Nothing.

Ubuntu.

Make sure you've read about the installation steps and best practices for securing the servers once the OS is installed.

• The size: in only 2U you have four dual processor servers.
• The server manufacturer has a compatibility list regarding RAM, hard drives, LAN and RAID cards, operating systems, etc. Asus has its own RAID, LAN card, but supports other manufacturers.
• The OS support list is very complete.

When a university or datacenter asked us about a certain amount of servers, we would study several models. As this four server system has the typical configuration (two LAN cards, remote management, two power supplies) the bidding, development and implementation process has been greatly simplified.

NVMe support. The manufacturer is developing a new line for that model which includes support for that type of hard drive.

The last 12 months.

Yes. The system has 10GB SFP+ Asus cards but some of them, under CentOs 7, only work at 1GB speed. Asus discovered it is a firmware problem and sent us a new version for those cards. Now the system works at 10GB without problems.

No. The servers have enough card slots and memory slots, so when it is necessary to add more RAM or new cards, there is no problem.

As I have just said, we had problems with the SFP+ cards but they were solved very fast. Asus technical support is very efficient.

Yes, BladeSystem. We changed the solution because the initial expenditure for BladeSystem is very high.

It was very straightforward because the servers come with all the necessary components: CPU dissipators, kit rail, two power supplies, etc.

I always advise using free software (like CentOs) because it has all the necessary tools for the universities and CPD. The Asus platform has remote management activated, without any licensing. With other server manufacturers, I would suggest it is necessary to ask for remote management licensing.

We evaluated 1U servers, but using the four-server system we save money.

The Asus platform is tested with CentOs 7. But if it is necessary to add new hardware, it is very important to verify that it is compatible with CentOs.

• Command Line

• Cost

• Ease of maintenance

With Linux, you can do a lot on the command line. Once a Linux server has been built, it tends to be stable with no performance leakage.

• Scalability

• Security

• Performance

I would like it to be more intuitive. There could be better help facilities. However, I guess the GUI can be fairly intuitive.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would rate the level of technical as OK.

We uses Windows before.

The setup was complex initially. However, once we overcame the steep learning curve, it was a lot easier.

This solution is much more cost effective than Windows and the Open Source options.

We evaluated Sun and Ubantu.

You need to have a command line skill set.

Valuable features for us are security and flexibility.

The solution has made our organization more secure than in previous releases.

We have been using the solution since its release.

Initially, I found it a bit difficult to work with as it was a totally new platform as compared to CentOS 6.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I have never needed to use the customer service.

I have never needed to use the technical support.

I have been working with the CentOS product since the beginning of my career.

The setup was a bit complex as it was quite different to previous CentOS releases.

We performed the implementation in-house.

Stability was the main "feature". There are many Linux distributions which come with all the new software, but we have no use for these new versions if they are buggy. With CentOS, we know it just works.

Not really, as we didn't really test other distros.

CentOS and RHEL for that matter are fairly difficult for beginners, as there are no popular and widely used Red Hat-based Desktop distros. And this has a slightly smaller user base and tutorials than other popular distros.

More than five years.

No.

No.

Didn't use it. We were using the (free) community version.

No.

It was just the easy Anaconda installer.

No experience.

No.

Try it! It's an amazingly stable Linux distro.

The solution provides stability and standardization. CentOS is fairly faithful to the Linux Standards Base, Freedesktop.org, and POSIX. Pretty much any code targeted at Linux builds and runs without any tweaking. Hardware support is extensive and diverse.

It's good to have a stable server OS that many people understand in depth. It has easier to find CentOS internal experts than Microsoft Windows internal experts, for example.

Out of the box, the NFS client is weak. It needs considerable kernel tuning before it runs NFS-bound applications efficiently. Perf "goes off a cliff" long before it should with the default settings.

The auto-mounter has been unstable, although it has been getting better recently.

We've been using CentOS 5 and 6 for seven years.

It needs a kernel tuning tool. Many settings are mysterious and require considerable forum searching.

When the NFS client becomes overloaded, due to its default queue sizes that are way too small, combined with poor scheduling algorithms, it makes the host unstable.

There were no scalability issues yet.

Red Hat service is excellent. It is definitely worth the nominal license fee for access to their knowledge base.

Red Hat service is excellent. It is definitely worth the nominal license fee for access to their knowledge base.

We were using Suse Enterprise. It was too non-standard. We often ended up fighting its mysterious "Yet Another Setup Tool" to get things installed.

The setup was straightforward, until the need for kernel tuning arose. Then we were kind of on our own.

We developed an installation image in-house and we distribute it to new hosts through a combination of PXE and Perforce sync.

The ROI is incalculable. We could not do our business without CentOS/Red Hat. It's the standard platform for most of our engineering tools.

Buy a Red Hat license. It's worth it.

We used SLES for a few years on some hosts. We considered Ubuntu LTS, Debian Stable, and FreeBSD.

FreeBSD may be a better choice for network intensive applications, if your apps will run on it.

Some of the valuable features are RHEL package support and ease of use.

Free OS for multiple application support, databases, and other tools. These included Drupal, Apache, and Zabbix.

Reverse compatibility with old commands

We have been using this solution for three years.

I did not encounter any issues with deployment.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I never called customer service.

I never called technical support.

We did not use a solution before this one.

The setup was straightforward with easy step-by-step installation for basic use.

The implementation was done in-house, coached by a highly skilled engineer.

It is free.

We did not evaluate other solutions.