Our company plan to upgrade our servers, and at the same, we would use AIX over Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I asked my boss the reason of choosing AIX, he said it is because AIX is more powerful. I wonder if it is true.

Does AIX really out perform RHEL in terms of data processing? Only text data, no graphic processing.

They are AIX 7.1 and RHEL is "Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 2)". Assume we would use the same machine for comparison.

closed as primarily opinion-based by Jeff Schaller, jasonwryan, Jakuje, don_crissti, Anthon Apr 14 '16 at 21:39

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    This is a curious comparison - a recent version of AIX vs an ancient version of RHEL? RHEL 3 Update 9 was the last release of RHEL3 before it hit EOL. Additionally RHEL3 ran a 2.4 kernel which cannot handle the same workloads as the 2.6 kernel which ships in recent versions of RHEL. – Chad Feller Aug 25 '11 at 4:37
  • Isn't it more likely the OS choice is pretty moot and you are going to get better PowerPC optimised binaries out of xlC on AIX than gcc on Linux? – Steve-o Aug 25 '11 at 4:53
  • 3
    Make some benchmark tests on the same hardware running the two different OS:es to get the correct answer. Too many factors are involved. #1 is probably the type of workload. Perhaps the filesystem is what matters most in your case? Or the memory bandwidth? Context switching performance? (Perhaps you should try Solaris as well?) Or could it be a "business" decision? :-) – MattBianco Aug 25 '11 at 7:57
  • I agree with Chad. It isn't a fair comparison. If you're going to compare AIX to Redhat, then I would consider running tests against the current stable version of each. RedHat 3 is also no longer supported. – mattcaffeine Aug 30 '11 at 17:58
  • for as much as I heard, the performance could or could not be different, but what really is amazing on AIX are the capabilities in term of disk / memory / cpu management they are way over any system, and a good AIX admin can really tune the system to shape it to the need. – Kiwy Apr 11 '14 at 7:59

If you're going to the expense of buying IBM pSeries servers, then generally, in broad terms, you may as well run AIX on them which is specifically crafted to drive the hardware as efficiently as possible. That goes from the hypervisor down through to the adapters.

If you want to run Linux, you may as well buy xSeries hardware (in IBM terms, or Intel / AMD kit).

What you get with pSeries hardware in combination with AIX is powerful enterprise class processing. Yes, pSeries hardware + Linux probably gives you close to that, but you save yourself virtually nothing in overall costs.

It's hard to get specific details, but the numbers I've seen quoted are that AIX will run the same workloads on pSeries hardware 5-10% faster than Linux.

Don't forget, since Linux is essentially free, and your pSeries hardware can be easily partitioned, you could trivially install one AIX partition, one Linux partition and run your own benchmarks with your own specific workloads. IBM Business Partners have access to environments where they can run those benchmarks for you - and I strongly recommend you take your vendor up on that ability.

All this assumes you are truly intending to buy pSeries and run either AIX or Linux. If in reality you're thinking of pSeries vs. Intel/AMD based hardware then it's an entirely different ballgame, and the OS won't be the deciding factor in performance in that case.

Actually, I'd recommend AIX on pSeries any day due to the mature logical volume management (best in the UNIX world in my view) and the exceptionaly versatile virtualisation (again, in my view, best of breed in the enterprise UNIX arena).

  • 1
    Completely agree +1. We recently bought 2 Power 770s for close to a million bucks, so AIX on most boxes is key seeing as it tailored specifically for the hardware. – n0pe Aug 25 '11 at 11:45
  • 1
    +1 You would be hard pressed to find a more stable environment than AIX on POWER 7 hardware. – mattcaffeine Aug 30 '11 at 18:12

AIX, in terms of usability, tries to focus a lot of admin tasks around an app called smitty. You no longer need to know what commands to run, simply type:

smitty [keyword]

For example:

smitty storage

Will bring you to a page where you can play around with NFS mounts and create new filesystems, etc. Smitty is a full command line GUI with ASCII characters and is quite nice. Seeing as you probably have more experience with Linux (RHEL), you'll find a lot of the AIX commands different, so smitty will be a good help and understanding your system.

In terms of data processing, I haven't seen any charts, but from what I've experienced it is quite fast at processing and parsing data.

  • 1
    I know the smitty stuff doesn't have much to do with processing speed, but I figure if you're making the switch it's an important thing to know. – n0pe Aug 25 '11 at 4:35

I don't have any numbers, but I worked for a health insurance company about two years ago. We had a product that was made for us that had been running on RHEL/JBoss. We migrated it to IBM Websphere on AIX and the application ran substantially faster on RHEL/JBoss.

This really isn't a good comparison just because there are so many factors: AIX vs RHEL, JBoss vs WebSphere, x86 vs POWER (I think, or whatever AIX runs on now). Plus the AIX servers were running in LPARS and the specs were substantially difference.

Because of the vast differences in the platforms and the way AIX is normally deployed, it's really difficult to get accurate numbers or even design fair benchmarks.


I don't think you can reasonably speak to data processing speeds in a broad sense. As pointed out in other answers, the only way to accurately measure performance is by testing your own apps. However, there are more reasons than just speeds-and-feeds for considering an OS. On average, no top-tier UNIX variant really offers a compelling reason over another. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages that tend to balance out in a head-to-head comparison. In extremes use cases (HPC, real-time computing, etc.) one variant may rise to the top. At other times external constraints will drive the decision. For example, RedHat does not certify JBoss running on AIX which might be enough to make someone nervous. Generally, focus should be placed on the skill set of the sys admin team and the overall software stack.

All else being equal, I would choose the platform that attracts the most industry innovation. Innovation tends to increase the opportunity for enhancing operating efficiency. Right now, that's Linux.


Hmm... that is indees interesting, but for those saying that AIX is a clear answer on IBM Power hardware, the answer is not that clear.

Linux on Power options are provided by IBM to support SUSE and RedHat Linux that is specifically "tweaked" and created for the Power hardware.

Some of the fantastic benefits of the IBM Power environment such as the leading reliability, performance, stability, and virtualization technologies are all provided to the Linux environments. Talk to IBM or fish around their web site to look at the many features that are now supported by the Linux versions for IBM power and see that the answer is no longer cut and dry.

I am an AIX fan, so I know what I prefer, but Linux is a very viable solution!


There are really two entirely different questions here. One is hardware. One is software. With IBM and AIX you get a paired (matched) set — allowing the xlC compiler to optimize for the hardware, etc. IBM has some amazing hardware — like HA (High Availability), which connects a bunch of computers to a SAN (and allows for remote SANs to be updated automatically). If a computer dies it just changes to another. It takes about one second. Few users will notice. If a SAN dies and you have a remote one, it will use it (probably slowly). But SANs with high RAID levels don't fail. IBM has hot swap pretty much everything. If memory or a core goes bad, they note it in error logs and then stop using them. You keep working (maybe diminished in memory or cores). IBM has "call home" — if something goes wrong, it sends the data to IBM and a service guy shows up at your door (they do call first) and hot swaps the problem out. Linux generally runs on "PCs" (personal computers) — the name should give pause. But that is a bit old-think — there are some amazing pieces of hardware out there by people other than IBM. All of them do VMs and so forth. Comparing is extremely different — IBM has a reputation for being expensive. It is not if compared to something with the same redundancy, call home, 24/7/365 service with 4 response (and they will replace the entire box if they can't fix it). If you don't need that, they are expensive. But as your company grows it makes more and more sense to have that — can you be down for a day or two? Our AIX box is fully 100% backed up off-site every MINUTE — if a nuke hits my building I lose at most one minute's worth of data (and have a lot of other problems). Someone has already pointed out you are comparing a newer AIX to an old Linux — not a good comparison. IBM is very reliable — thousands of users (been doing this for 40 years), 90% IBM, 10% CentOS (the small guys). I have IBM computers up for many many years (as in over 7 in one case). IBM computers are viable almost forever; I have customers with 20 year old (pre-Y2K patched) computers and most keep theirs for 5+ years. That is unusual in the Linux world. Someone said the innovation and so forth is in Linux. They are right. They are adding gaming features, for example. Great. I don't need it. We do ERP systems — accounting — I don't need innovation. Is it fast, reliable, long lasting? Good. My answer is — if you are small, CentOS is a good place to start — your software will run on AIX (and please write with byte swapping in mind). As you get larger and larger, AIX and IBM start to make more sense, especially if reliability is required. I have systems with databases with almost a billion rows that exchange 2-4 million XML files with vendors and customers per day, the IBM controls hundreds of handheld scanners, hundreds of packing stations, and even manages automated boxing and bagging systems. A "ps" during peak can show over 10,000 processes at once. On ONE COMPUTER. With a SAN that has a secondary computer and some flash backup system I don't understand (except they can lose 3/4 drives — solid state — and still be fine and not have to go to the second SAN). You use the right tool for the job. To ferry kids to school, a Prius sounds pretty good. Don't try pulling my 12,000 lbs horse trailer with it. And the mighty Ford that pulls the horse trailer — not easy to park and not my favorite around-town car. It looks from your description that your company is growing, and hence moving towards IBM and AIX looks on the surface like it might make sense. I don't have enough information to be certain. However, a customer with three workstations doing an 8-5 retail operation with 20 invoices a day would be insane to get an IBM. Get CentOS or ... gasp ... Windows. I sort of see CentOS as the in-between solution. BTW — don't take my answer as gospel; several others were good, too. It is a situational question for which none of us have enough detail (I'd like to know how many transactions per day, how long can you be down, how much data can you lose and manually restore, what is your growth projection, what are your finances and budget?) It sounds like you can afford and are growing so it sounds on the surface like a viable choice.

  • 1
    I suggest to break your answer into paragraphs to make it more readable. – Guido Apr 14 '16 at 20:11
  • By the way, what is "4 response"? Do you mean "4-hour response"? – G-Man Apr 14 '16 at 20:41

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.