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.

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 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.

In our company, we are using Oracle Linux for virtualized machines or VMs. So, Oracle Linux is the operating software for us. The tool is easy to use, and its performance is also good. From a competitive point of view, the solution is cost-effective, so it is installed in our machines.

The solution's security could be better and improved, but I am not sure.

Since it is a VM, it gets slow. It can be an area for improvement. So, we get a connection, making it not a very significant issue since it usually works well.

I have been using Oracle Linux for two to three years as an end-user. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using.

It is a stable solution. We rarely face any issues with the machine.

Since the solution is a per-machine license-based one, I am unsure about its scalability.

I have worked with thousands who were working on the solution.

With our machines, we do seek help from the solution's technical support. So, whenever we have an issue, as I mentioned, we go back to IT support to raise a ticket, and they resolve our issues in a day.

We switched to Oracle Linux from another solution since it is our organization that provides us with software, it is. So they decided Oracle Linux to be the operating system we all use.

We get the machines to work on, but since I am an end-user, I feel that I am not the right person to speak on how Oracle Linux does the setup and the cost involved in the solution. We let the staff involved in the deployment and maintenance know whenever we have an issue with the operating system. We generate a ticket, and depending upon an issue, they take a day maximum to resolve our issues.

Our IT support team did everything related to the installation part.

We are currently operating the solution using a license-based version. We get licenses per machine.

The evaluation of other solutions was not carried out at an organizational level but at a personal level, and I looked at Microsoft-based products. There are two different scenarios, one of which, at a personal level, I might have a different operating system on my computer, while in the second one, my office might be providing me with some different machine. But we need to acknowledge the fact that the company's decision is of paramount importance.

I rate the overall product a seven to eight out of ten.

We use Oracle Linux for Virtualization Platform, DNS Servers, Database Servers and IT infrastructure observability tools

Orlacle Linux has provided a redhat compatible open source OS for diverse needs. We smoothly run on Oracle OS; KVM virtualization environment, Postgesql databases, Zabbix, Grafana, Fluentd and other observability tools. We have seen a remarkable improvement as DNS queries are fast and the platforms can be easily secured with no worries of security issues arising due to unpatched systems.

There is full compatibility with RedHat-based operating systems, in particular Centos, which we widely deployed before Oracle Linux (OL).

For usability, the GUI options during the initial setup could be included with advanced OS tuning and optimization, currently as with most Linux systems that can be done via CLI.

We have been using Oracle Linux for more than three years

Very stable

Very scalable, especially with available support options

Haven't used the customer service and support

Centos, migrated after Centos switches to Centos Stream

Straightforward setup, used the free option

Implemented in-house

100%

It's an open source OS freerly available. Support subscription is paid

Yes, Rocky Linux, Alma Linux and OpenSuse

A pretty stable and secure operating system that perfectly serve as an alternative to Centos OS.