Community Forum

Resolved
0 votes
Hi folks

Have recently discovered Zentyal, and through extension, clearOS.

I have been playing with Zentyal over the last few days and have been impressed, but ClearOS also seems to have similar functionality but in a more polished package.

Can anyone compare and contrast the two?

I'm in the business of Managed Services, so any info that would pertain to MSP's would be handy, stuff like reporting, centralized management, and repeatable configuration of sites.

Any input appreciated :)

Cheers
James
Friday, October 08 2010, 06:21 PM
Share this post:
Responses (20)
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, May 06 2013, 08:16 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I have just recently re-looked at this

    Zentyal 3.0 vs ClearOS v6.4

    the speed is still a BIG issue with Zentyal

    On identical hardware the Internet Connection was 1.2MB quicker with Clear then Zentyal, and even just browsing the web interface was a lot slower on Zentyal.

    This was also on a slow internet connection 20MB, the speed issues were tested several times and were consistently slower

    Note: this was a fresh install, no tweaking etc so It could be user error / incorrect setup

    I was just wanting to test Zentyal Samba4 which is built in where with Clear is seems to be paid app only?
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Thursday, August 02 2012, 07:51 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    This is a cool thread.

    I ran Zentyal for some time before I discovered ClearOS. I loved Zentyal and at the time ClearOS had to convince me to change. Well, it did. Why?

    They both have good modules, stability, support, compatibility etc.

    But ClearOS to me is much more refined. But above that there is 1 category where ClearOS kicks the ever living snot out of Zentyal and that is sheer performance.

    I started the entire "roll your own" home router project because with the 100mb pipe I had I was toasting normal off the shelf routers especially if I tried to do anything fancy. And I am talking the $200+ versions of.

    To make a long story short I got multiple mb PER SECOND more out of ClearOS than Zentyal on the same hardware. That is a HUGE difference.

    I suspect this is due to being built on top of Red Hat instead of Ubuntu.

    So as far as I am concerned if you have a healthy bandwidth of 50m+ you do yourself a dis-service by using Zentyal by leaving some portion of that pipe unused as the box you are running simply cannot keep up.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Saturday, July 28 2012, 11:46 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Arthur - much appreciated summary.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Eric
    Eric
    Offline
    Friday, June 15 2012, 04:05 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I'm about to demo Zentyal now actually. I use ClearOS 6.2 at home and it breaks the xBox. I tried some different suggestions, but no xBox for me still. I'm going to see if Zentyal works any better and if not roll back to ClearOS 5
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Sunday, May 06 2012, 10:45 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Has anyone looked recently at ClearOS vs Zentyal

    specifically ClearOS v6.2 vs Zentyal v2.3
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Arthur
    Arthur
    Offline
    Saturday, October 23 2010, 11:16 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Hi Peter,
    It's good to hear about COS 6, from here it can only get better.
    Thank you for explaining the Squid issue. Now it's all clear. Thanks also for the tip on xterm :lol:
    I hope that that "itch" to rework the network layer is strong enough to see something in COS 6, who knows.

    Cheers,
    Arthur.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Friday, October 22 2010, 03:32 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Wow... thanks Arthur. That's great feedback!

    - Implementation of "network objects" that can be tied to IP and MAC and the ability to use these objects with other modules.


    That's an interesting concept. I know that Darryl (the primary firewall/network guru at ClearCenter) has been itching at reworking the whole network layer. We have added more and more features over the years and it's a bit messy now.

    - Some sort of desktop from where we can run a browser or another 3th party app


    Hmmm. Personally, I want to discourage that. The "graphic console" that you see is really Firefox in full screen, no menu, and running in a minimalist X Window manager (ratpoison). You can launch other programs if you really wanted to, but I don't think we'll encourage that :-)

    For example, I just ran:

    yum install xterm
    DISPLAY=0:0 su -c 'xterm' clearconsole

    Voila... an xterm shows up on the main screen. I run my MythTV frontend this way FWIW.

    Delay pools class 1&2 for Squid proxy


    We'll investigate this in relation to the number one item on the wishlist.

    Upgrade Squid to 2.7 instead of maintaining 2.6 (I never understood why)


    There were not enough compelling reasons to fork away from the base CentOS/RHEL builds. We have done this for Squid in the past. In fact, we were going down the road of using Squid 3.0 in ClarkConnect 5.0, but there was a showstopper feature missing (X-Forward-something need by the content filter). We had 3.0 all patched and built before we found the showstopper. We needed to revert back to either the stock 2.6 or a custom built/maintained 2.7.

    At a more fundamental level, RHEL/CentOS 5.x is getting old. Really old. You will see Squid 3.1 in ClearOS 6.0, not to mention 64-bit.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Friday, October 22 2010, 09:29 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    i just wait n see, B) if squid chance from 2.6 to 2.7 or 3.1,
    i tried to limiting bandwidth with delay pools n webmin htb or webmin cbq, delay pools is not flexible limit bandwidth, upload cannot limit.
    webmin htb n cbq, i did 'nt succesfully, tried, tried n tried to limit bandwidth,


    maybe if bandwidth in my country could more cheapest, i use 1 Mbps for 20 client, in my internet cafe, $ 75 per month same with salary a labor, maybe limited bandwidth not important if you have big bandwidth,

    just wait n see, B) until now i use two server, clearos n mikrotik for bandwidth limiter, heheheh, :laugh:
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Arthur
    Arthur
    Offline
    Friday, October 22 2010, 09:20 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Jay M wrote:

    I hope it's not going to be implemented as default. Adding GUI/Desktop Environment will take some resources.

    Yes that's a fact. But it could be available as an option at install. The ability to choose between a desktop enabled version or the console version will make us all happy.

    Jay M wrote:
    I never browse internet on my firewall and never have a need for it

    Don't forget that COS is so much more than only a firewall. I would agree with you if COS was only that.
    I plan to use it as an all integrated solution for my users, if I'm going to put a dedicated box 24/7, well then it might as well do several things at once, including filesharing, mailserver, webproxy, tftp, storing my pxe boot images...including running a browser.

    It all depends on the role of the server, so to have this option at install makes sense to me.

    Cheers.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Jay M
    Jay M
    Offline
    Friday, October 22 2010, 08:46 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Arthur wrote:

    - Some sort of desktop from where we can run a browser or another 3th party app


    I hope it's not going to be implemented as default. Adding GUI/Desktop Environment will take some resources. I never browse internet on my firewall and never have a need for it :lol:
    Beside, virtualization is a common thing these days (I still have a dedicated box for my firewall but might P2V it later), and adding a GUI definitely a waste.

    Except that point, I like the rest of suggestions and hope it will be implemented :cheer:
    The reply is currently minimized Show
Your Reply