Oracle Linux Reviews

We use it for security purposes. Linux, or Solaris, offers more security and reliability than Windows operating systems. Windows is easier to attack. 

Most files used by hackers are executables, and if your vendor's operating system isn't secure, that's a problem. That's why we use Oracle Linux; it's compatible with our database.

If we use Linux, Solaris, or some other operating systems, we have to build a lot of packages using RPMs (the packet manager). That's a difficult task. With Oracle Linux, we use a single command to update from the Oracle website. 

It updates in minutes and downloads all necessary RPMs required for your database. This allows us to install our Oracle database without errors on Oracle Linux. We can prepare our server within 30 minutes if we have a good internet speed. Oracle platforms are steady and robust.

The main challenge can be compatibility with products from other companies. When you mix products from different vendors, you might experience difficulties. Using products from the same platform simplifies things.

Before Oracle Linux existed, back in 2001 and 2003, Oracle didn't have its own operating system and used other versions of Linux. We faced problems with these. For example, the earlier Linux versions were 32-bit operating systems. This limited the amount of memory we could allocate to our Oracle database instances. Let's say we had a server with 128 GB of RAM; with a 32-bit Linux operating system, we couldn't use all of it for the database.

When later Linux releases became 64-bit, this limitation disappeared, giving us much more memory to work with. The compatibility with Oracle products is a big advantage. It makes it easier for DBAs (Database Administrators) to manage our databases. If my boss tells me two or three new servers are arriving tomorrow, it's not a problem. I can quickly set them up and prepare them – even doing installations on multiple servers at the same time.

Sometimes we have applications that only run on operating systems like Windows, creating difficulties. Microsoft's platform is easier for some people to understand, but troubleshooting issues can be quite challenging, even for experienced programmers. In contrast, troubleshooting on the Oracle platform is much simpler, which is a key benefit.

I have been using it since 2004. 

When we start the installation, we decide the purpose of the server based on the expected database size. If the database is under 100 GB, we will allocate resources accordingly. If the database will be about 100 terabytes or 500 terabytes, then we adjust our allocation. Sometimes, in our UAT (User Acceptance Testing) databases, we allocate less memory, which can cause some minor issues.

Otherwise, in production environments, we take our time. When switching to new hardware, we dedicate at least three months to proper testing. We purchase hardware licenses, software licenses, and database licenses all together. 

We never rush installation because we conduct thorough testing. We test everything from the production database to the standby database. We heavily load the standby database, and if it performs perfectly, then we switch roles – standby becomes production and vice versa. We perform many transactions on both sides to check the load balance.

Once satisfied, let's say we have 20,000 users, each with approximately three active sessions – that's potentially 60,000 sessions. We observe how the server handles this, how much CPU is consumed during peak times. 

Peak times in most organizations are generally from nine to five, with cool down from ten to twelve, then after breaks, again from 02:00 to 04:30 P.M. We monitor CPU consumption and RAM utilization during these peak hours. We check every step, and only when we say, "Okay, this server can support our new hardware and software, we have no issue" – only then do we make the switch.

We are happy. We are using it. We recommend it to our students. We also recommend it to our friends.

Oracle installations are never a problem for us. We've been using Oracle for over 23 years. Even with new features added in later versions, we have no issues because of our extensive experience. 

Oracle provides two options for installation: 

• GUI (graphical user interface) and 
• CLI (command-line interface). 

We use both and have no problems.

We have a separate database server. It's not part of the cloud; it's an Oracle RAC.

Oracle RAC is a combination of multiple servers: two servers, four servers, eight servers, even sixteen servers. It's a combination of multiple servers. Oracle Linux is only just used on the server side, not on the client side.

Primarily, it's the DBAs (Database Administrators) who control and use the database servers. Network and security departments generally use Windows operating systems. They don't deal with Linux commands as much because they have limited access and manage fewer servers – maybe two, three, four, or a maximum of ten. In contrast, we have many database servers, and for security reasons, we prefer Linux. We don't have Windows servers for our database work.

Oracle is expensive compared to the Microsoft platform. with much money. 

We have a license for each and every one, but we have a separate Oracle IT procurement department that deals with the costs.

I'd recommend that you use it. The main challenge for new users of Linux is the command-line interface (CLI). It can be intimidating if you're not familiar with it.

However, Oracle provides excellent manuals and installation guides on its website. If you follow those guidelines, you won't have problems. Oracle Linux is secure and reliable.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. It is a good product. 

We use the solution for application servers. Linux offers many features, including CPU monitoring, memory management, hard disk monitoring, process management, and log management. We rely on command-line tools and shell scripts rather than graphical interfaces for these tasks.

It can be integrated with almost any other product. We use standard methods to make it more compatible with any flavor of Linux.

Patches and upgrades for Oracle Linux are readily accessible. The package management system is streamlined and well-organized. Oracle Linux provides a more integrated approach to package management, consolidating resources and minimizing the need to search for various components separately. This centralized system simplifies the process of maintaining and updating the operating system.

They keep increasing their license prices, making it increasingly costly. So many banks and customers are moving away from Oracle Linux. They are going to other flavors because they are cheaper.

You can add things to it, but Oracle may have added extra stuff that is not supported by other Linux. Then they don't get used to it because we have to work with standard Linux features.

I have been using Oracle Linux for 15 years.

It's very stable. I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The scalability is good. You can scale up using more processors, memory, and a hard disk. 

You can have 10,000 users on our system.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven or eight out of ten.

The deployment is similar to CentOS and takes an hour to complete.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Oracle Linux is probably the most expensive one.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

I recommend the solution because it is one of the most stable systems.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We strategically use it in specific cases, leveraging it as a cost-effective substitute for Red Hat due to favorable license agreements with Oracle. In virtualized Oracle database scenarios, it helps meet licensing requirements by pinning workloads to specific cores. For customers with oversized machines, we employ it to ensure compliance, partitioning virtualized clusters to license only necessary components for Oracle databases. Sometimes, it coexists with another management solution, serving solely for core-pinning and compliance, while a separate solution manages virtual machines which optimizes licensing costs and aligns with Oracle's requirements for workload isolation and core-pinning, particularly in scenarios with larger-than-needed virtualized clusters for specific database workloads.

The main business advantage is maintaining compliance with Oracle licensing, avoiding non-compliance issues, and license revisions. Technically, it closely resembles Red Hat Enterprise Linux for bug-for-bug compatibility.

There is a desire to include ZFS as a supported file system from the installation phase. I find it to be an excellent file system that significantly simplifies storage management on systems. Unlike other setups where you need both a file system and a volume manager, ZFS combines these functionalities into a single package. It provides a proven and stable solution, eliminating the need for continuous testing with different technologies. ZFS is enterprise-proven and, compared to other Linux file systems, stands out in terms of management efficiency. While some file systems may offer slightly faster speeds, ZFS excels in overall performance, manageability, and reliability, making it a top choice in the Linux world. Another notable aspect that could be improved is minor compatibility with Red Hat. This is crucial for customers seeking ISV support. ISVs often limit their support to a select few distributions, typically Red Hat, and maintaining compatibility is vital for application functionality.

I have been working with it for more than twenty years.

In terms of availability and stability requirements, it competes well with other major Linux distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu.

It is scalable, catering to a diverse range of systems—from relatively small setups to significantly large ones. When dealing with substantial workloads, especially on the x86 platform, I often find that Oracle Linux outperforms other solutions, showcasing its efficiency and capability to handle larger workloads more effectively.

In most cases, users have found the support to be reliable. I appreciate their support page and the effective manner in which they handle technical support calls—it's generally quite satisfactory. Often, the questions I encounter are more suited for second-line support rather than the initial, first-line support. I would appreciate a quicker transition to second-line support for more efficient resolution. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

For mission-critical operations, Solaris is my preferred operating system, particularly for tasks like running Oracle databases. Solaris is chosen for its exceptional stability, ensuring uninterrupted 24/7, 52-week operations. The development philosophy of Solaris prioritizes stability and capabilities. In contrast, Linux prioritizes introducing new features, often at the expense of compatibility.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The duration is influenced by factors such as the deployment purpose, the platform chosen (virtual machine or hardware), and the specific tasks associated with the deployment. Simple deployments, such as setting up a basic web service, can take as little as ten minutes or even less. However, for more complex configurations like a rack cluster, the deployment time extends, potentially requiring a day or two due to the numerous configurations involved. Typically, installations don't involve utilizing an architect; instead, a single person can handle most of the architect's solution installations. The maintenance process is considered fairly straightforward and well-supported.

The cost is relatively affordable. The license itself is free, similar to Red Hat. There is no direct cost for running it. However, the expenses are associated with the license, which includes support. Typically, we opt for a seven-year database license, and for most of our customers, we tend to commit to periods of three to five years at a time.

If you're seeking a stable and reliable enterprise distribution, it is an excellent choice. It stands out with its stability and a team of skilled engineers within the company. It's a strong distribution worth considering for a dependable and efficient workhorse in an enterprise environment. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

We are currently using Oracle Linux in our organization for handling various systems. My experience with Oracle Linux is mainly in managing it for server performance and handling different operating systems like Linux, Windows, and UNIX.

I find Oracle Linux's troubleshooting capabilities to be straightforward and simple to use. The commands are very user-friendly, making it easier for me to manage and troubleshoot. Additionally, Oracle Linux has American Standard levels of security, which I consider to be quite good. I find the stability to be excellent as the system manages outages effectively.

I think Oracle Linux's outage management can be improved to better handle outages. Furthermore, I believe there could be more resources available for enhanced learning, such as more training materials or a simplified setup process.

I have been working with Oracle Linux for about one year.

I have not experienced any stability issues with Oracle Linux. It is very stable compared to other systems.

I find Oracle Linux to be quite scalable. It handles device performance well, automatically managing any issues that arise.

The setup was already done for us by third parties. We did not do the initial setup ourselves.

They already set it up for us, and we used an already done setup.

I would recommend Oracle Linux, but before recommending it, I need to be prepared to answer all related questions. I would rate my personal knowledge of Oracle Linux five out of ten. However, I would rate the solution itself nine out of ten overall, as it has shown to be very efficient and user-friendly.

On-premises

We use the product for Oracle Database and MySQL databases.

We do not use any features specific to the OS. We are more interested in the packages needed as prerequisites for Oracle databases. The performance, feasibility, and flexibility of the I/O subsystem are valuable to us. The compatibility of Kernel with Oracle is much better than other tools.

NTP communication should be more concrete and robust. Time drifts happen frequently, and the database restarts automatically to protect data integrity. The product should give a warning before the time drift happens. It should alert us about how long the time drift will take. Such features will make the product a very good OS.

I have been using the solution for around ten years.

I rate the product’s stability an eight out of ten. The operating system has some issues with the network time protocol.

The scalability is very nice. We can scale horizontally by adding more servers. We can also scale a single server vertically. It depends on the physical hardware that is available. On average, we have 1500 users.

We got a few opportunities to interact with the support team when we had vulnerabilities in Kernel. We contacted the team for feedback on which version to use to fix the vulnerability. We have created four or five tickets. All the tickets were supported very well.

Once, we created a database ticket that required a spin-off ticket to the operating system team. We could easily create the ticket and get both teams to work together. That is the advantage of having both Oracle Enterprise Linux and Oracle Database.

The initial setup is straightforward. Once the first installation is done, we can clone and replicate it for other installations. The solution is deployed on our own private cloud.

We have nine DBAs and two engineers to deploy the solution.

We are not paying anything for the operating system.

We are using synchronous I/O and ASM storage. We are not using any other features. Before bringing in improvements, we want to evaluate RHEL and OEL for better integration of the platforms and the virtual machines we are deploying. We are checking the compatibility of RHEL and OEL with our existing infrastructure.

We want the product to support the database, have more compatibility, and give fewer issues during peak workloads. These are the things we are looking for. We are mainly concerned about library support, security patching, and technical support from the vendor.

I am an end user. I am not aware of the deployment process. The operating system will be deployed as per our specifications, and it will be given to us. We perform the database installation on it.

We do not have much interaction with the development team. We only interact with the team when it needs to create a new database or a user inside it. I recommend the solution to others. Most of the Oracle tools were developed on Oracle Enterprise Linux. Compatibility and support-wise, everything will be under a single umbrella. We do not have to find another vendor. We have an unlimited license for Database. I do not know the terms.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Private Cloud

I was using it in a production support scenario with an Oracle database installed on Oracle Linux.

It is very compatible because it's from the same product family, so it makes the work very easy.

Managing upgrades, especially moving from one version of Oracle Linux to another, can be challenging. Unlike some systems that offer a straightforward, plug-and-play upgrade process, Oracle Linux requires more effort. You need to ensure proper backups of applications to safeguard against potential issues during the upgrade. This aspect of the experience could benefit from improvement, as other operating systems have streamline their upgrade processes.

I have been using Oracle Linux for eight years.

The product is stable. I rate it’s stability a ten out of ten.

In terms of scalability, Oracle Linux requires proper sizing of your infrastructure to handle your needs effectively. If the sizing is done incorrectly, it can lead to challenges. While Oracle provides robust solutions, it’s up to you to ensure your infrastructure is appropriately scaled to accommodate data and information growth. Proper planning is essential to manage potential issues and ensure smooth operation.
150 users are using this solution.

Oracle is not known for its straightforwardness and often requires a certain level of skill, especially in the Linux environment. For someone setting it up from scratch, it took nearly a full day to get the server running by the end of the day.

In terms of development, Oracle offers a rich set of tools and resources that developers can use to build their products. They also invest heavily in security, making their solutions strong in the security domain. Expertise is another key benefit, as Oracle relies on knowledgeable resellers who provide excellent support for clients. Additionally, their reseller program includes training opportunities, allowing clients to access training credits and ensure they fully benefit from Oracle’s offerings.

It is very expensive.

Oracle Linux is a Linux distribution known for its strong kernel security, which helps ensure the kernel remains resilient against various threats. It provides regular security updates to maintain a secure environment for applications and server operations. Its compatibility with Oracle databases enhances performance and integration. Additionally, as a Linux-based OS, it supports automation through scripting, which aids in managing routine tasks effectively. Overall, Oracle Linux is recognized for its stability and reliability.

Oracle is highly focused on security features and regularly performs necessary tests on its Linux version. If any vulnerabilities are identified, Oracle promptly releases patches. This proactive approach helps ensure that applications running on Oracle Linux are securely maintained and protected.

Oracle is a great product if you have money. I would suggest exploring other open-source options to better manage costs, unless you have specific compliance requirements or other constraints that necessitate using Oracle Linux. In most cases, open-source solutions can be more cost-effective. However, if budget is not a concern, you might consider sticking with Oracle Linux for its robust features.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

I use the solution to host Oracle Database and ACSLS which manages tape libraries. ACSLS used to be owned by StorageTek but was purchased by Oracle. 

For example, our infrastructure utilizes the solution to run ACSLS and provide commands to the tape library, conduct inventory, provide encryption, and keep track of volumes with their location slots. 

The solution is not used by thousands but instead provides inter-computer communications and services like DNS, encryption, and management. 

The solution runs very well on inter-platform or HPE Intel servers. 

Product documentation and technical support are excellent. 

The graphic interface could be improved to work better in a desktop environment like Red Hat or Ubuntu.

Few people use the solution because its marketing is faltering. Unless companies buy other items from Oracle such as ACSLS for managing tape libraries, there is no need to use the solution. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable and has been running for months with no issues. 

On occasion, we install patches to fix security vulnerabilities. 

We use the solution for a very specific applications so do not have the need to scale. The solution is connected to another platform to provide encryption or management. For our use, the solution works very well. 

We do not have thousands of users connected to the solution. 

The solution provides the best and most detailed documentation available. Step-by-step instructions are provided for downloading packages and installing operating systems. 

The response time for technical issues is excellent and second to none. If you have an issue, they will be able and willing to help. 

Positive

I am also a system administrator for Solaris and prefer it because it has been on the market longer and I am familiar with it. 

In my opinion, Solaris is the best operating system available but has limitations because it must operate on a SPARC server. It is a legacy solution that is aging out and being replaced by Red Hat or Linux. 

The initial setup and deployment is easy.

Our data center operators racked everything and connected the network. Then our engineering group connected the console, mounted remote DVDs with the software, connected remote ISOs or ICOs, and deployed the operating system. Our security group handled authentication like the LDAP configuration that allows use of the same accounts for all servers. 

Daily operations include several monitoring services like Netcool or ScienceLogic to keep track of things via SNMP. When something fails, a ticket is received via Remedy and our security group lets us know to patch for vulnerabilities. 

The implementation was done in-house with no issues. 

We downloaded software packages from the website, repurposed some hardware, and installed the operating system. 

Overall, the solution is less expensive than Solaris and allows for use of existing hardware.

I do not have access to actual costs but believe the licensing fees are quite high.

The Linux solution can run on inter-platform so that puts it in competition with Red Hat which is marketed better and has bandwidth. 

Red Hat has become the standard since it was purchased by IBM and users are migrating to it. Red Hat was not an option for us because we had specific needs. 

We chose the solution because it supports our HPE Intel server and ACSLS. 

Documentation for the solution is outstanding and support is good. 

For security, disable things you do not need like Telnet or ports and rely instead on SNMP for great monitoring that alerts you to memory and space utilization. 

Partition your file system instead of using defaults for root and boot file systems. Separate file systems protect against machine crashes or root file system issues. 

Ensure that you secure your entire system to prevent hacks. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

On-premises

I am a database administrator and work within the database that installs the solution all over the company and for clients. 

The solution used to be set up on hardware such as Exadata and Spark machines. Nowadays, the solution is set up on virtual machines and uses the ODA in various cloud environments. 

There are 50 to 100 people who use the solution across multiple teams that operate morning, noon, and night. My team is composed of 20 architects or engineers who focus on DBA for Oracle DB2 and SQL server.

The solution is a reliable operational system that gets the job done.

Many features are over and above competitors such as Red Hat.

CapsLive is a great, free feature that you have to pay for in other systems. I can do upgrades to the operational system without any database or application downtime. This saves me a lot of time. 

The virtual environment is the best I've ever worked with. 

Graphical support for the environment could be more like virtual reality. 

The solution is not as user friendly as Meet for IBM AIX. Meet has a more friendly operational system because the interface works in a better way. 

It would be beneficial to have universal integration with clouds around the world such as Amazon, Google, Azure, and Oracle.

It would be nice to have better features for governance types. 

I have been using the solution for years. 

The solution is very, very stable and runs particularly well for Unix and Linux environments. You can let the machine run without turning it off for a long time and it will still work well. That is completely different than working with Windows or other substandard operational systems.

Stability is rated a ten out of ten. 

The solution is very scalable with no change in hardware needed. Most operational systems require you to change the entire hardware in order to accommodate a new operational system. 

Scalability is rated a ten out of ten. 

We use technical support when we have bugs or issues. Support used to be a bit lost because they didn't have historical information about issues. But nowadays, support usually solves our issues. 

We like the support team and don't have problems with them. All solutions come with issues, but Oracle provides an issue manual that is helpful. 

Technical support is rated an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I used to work with Windows and Ubuntu. 

I previously used Meet for IBM AIX. I still work a bit with the AIX operating system. 

I don't usually do installations, but did some a long time ago and they were not difficult. 

If you pay attention and take care of performance issues or adapt the operational system for your goals, then setup is not difficult. 

We implement the solution in-house. We have a highly-professional team who sometimes collaborates with Oracle engineers if we have issues. 

The solution is free to use with a support subscription rather than having to buy licenses. There is no comparison in pricing right now. 

There isn't a better operational system in the world right now. Maybe someone will invent one, but for now the solution with Linux and Unix is the top option. 

Windows is a terrible operational system that relies on pointers so I don't like using it at all. It also has mathematical flaws that I don't like. 

It is important to work with a vendor who will sell you the correct product for your environment rather than just try to make the most money off of you. 

Study the solution and learn how to install it correctly and use it in the best ways. Follow best practices from Oracle and get some training in the operational system. 

The solution comes with a lot of features and options that you can use for free. It is reliable and you can even use an old version with no issues. It is not the most user friendly, but you can learn it with a bit of study. 

Overall, the solution beats other operational systems by a large margin. The solution is rated a nine out of ten. 

Public Cloud

Other