4 ms·
There are plenty of cases where infrastructure can be split into "critical" and "nice to have". In HPC, it is reasonably common for people to run RHEL on the s
by anyoneamous 3y ago
There are plenty of cases where infrastructure can be split into "critical" and "nice to have".
In HPC, it is reasonably common for people to run RHEL on the scheduler, database and login nodes (totalling maybe a dozen servers) but then use CentOS (now Rocky) for the compute nodes, which might be hundreds of nodes. Those customers simply can't justify the cost of RHEL everywhere, even with more recent changes which make it cheaper than it has been historically in this use-case.
- zb3 3y agoTo me it sounds like the pricing model is not optimal. I guess in these situations, they could pay RH "a bit more" in exchange for a legal RHEL license covering those extra nodes. But if there was no such offer then it sounds like a lost opportunity. (but I'm a complete outsider, I just share my views and I do acknowledge I may be missing something, so feel free to elaborate further)
- anyoneamous 3y agoI think you are right - the problem is that "a bit more" really ought to be a small uplift on the needed licenses, rather than the current inadequate discount on compute nodes (along with hoop-jumping to convince sales people you aren't trying to scam them).
- Rediscover 3y agoBoeing, up to at least 2016. A large amount of RHEL, and a screamingly HUGE amount of CentOS.