CentOS Reviews

I use the solution as a SIEM tool for system locking purposes.

They should improve the solution's hardware performance.

I have been using the solution for four years.

It is a stable solution.

We have five to ten users of the solution at our organization. We may plan to increase the number of users. It is challenging to scale the solution when we have to increase the storage capacity from one end.

I have used Kali Linux before. I switched to CentOS as it is free of cost and has a good infrastructure.

The solution's initial setup is easy. There are installation options provided. We can either do a full or a minimum installation. It is easy to install tools in it. The process takes 30 minutes to complete.

I implemented the solution myself.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a seven. I advise others to know about the solution's commands before purchasing it.

Most of the time, I use CentOS for deploying Tomcat to run web applications. I use it to run Docker, as well.

The most valuable feature is that it is compatible with RedHat. 

In the future, CentOS will no longer be compatible with Red Hat. I would prefer that it remains compatible because when it changes, we will no longer be using it.

What is missing from this product is a real file system like CFS. Having a modern file system is important and in CentOS 7, btrfs was supported. However, in version 8 it has been removed. I don't understand why and I think that it was a very bad move and a very customer-unfriendly thing to do.

I have been working with CentOS for a few years.

CentOS is quite stable.

In the company, we have approximately 800 people who are using it. Beyond that, a lot of our customers are using it, as well.

I have never been in contact with technical support. We manage it ourselves.

For as long as I have been with the company, they have been using CentOS.

The installation is mostly straightforward. We have automated it.

There are no licensing costs for CentOS.

At this point, because of the announcement that it will no longer be compatible with Red Hat in the future, I do not recommend this product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

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.

Support of public systems

We are going with CentOS due to minimalistic and stable approach during OS build preparation.

The most valuable feature of CentOS is that it is easy to use.

The price of CentOS could improve.

I have been using CentOS for approximately five years.

CentOS is stable.

The setup of CentOS is easy.

CentOS is an expensive solution. There are other solutions that are rated at the top that are not expensive, such as Red Hat or Oracle Linux.

I rate CentOS an eight out of ten.

Our file management system is based on CentOS.

It's quite good.

It is better than Ubuntu Linux.

We occasionally have issues with software installation. For example, if we want to install a gen framework, we will face some challenges.

I have been working with CentOS for approximately five years.

We are using the latest version of CentOS.

CentOS is a stable product.

In our organization, there are four or five users.

At the moment, we have no plans to increase our usage.

We have not yet contacted technical support.

We are also using Ubuntu Linux.

The installation can take up to a day, but it can also be completed in as little as 10 minutes.

We have a team of four or five engineers who will install and maintain this solution.

We have no complaints about the price, which is quite reasonable.

We have a CentOS license that we pay for on a yearly basis.

Both CentOS and Ubuntu Linux are great choices.

I would rate CentOS a nine out of ten.

• 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.

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.

I use CentOS as an operating system for many of the services we are using.

CentOS should extend the support of the solution. The solution is set to have no update support in 2023.

I have been using CentOS for approximately 10 years.

CentOS is stable.

The scalability of CentOS is good. We can deploy the operating system in many hardware, laptops, and servers.

This solution is not used by end-users, it is used by IT staff.

There is not any technical support available from CentOS since it is open-source. However, there is a large community where information can be found for any problem that might arise.

The initial setup of CentOS was simple. There was some configuration to be completed but then it is up and running.

We did the implementation in-house.

This is a free solution.

The number of maintenance people needed depends on the company and its strategy.

I recommend this solution to others but the support of the solution is ending next year.

I rate CentOS an eight out of ten.