| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)Posted May 6, 2003 19:13 UTC (Tue) by southey (subscriber, #9466)Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Not bad for a stock install! Interesting all the number of changes they made to the Windows system even from the default install, yet did virtually nothing with the RH system. One is always suspicious when there is such a difference regardless of benchmark (recalling how companies often optimize the benchmark, not actual performance).
(Log in to post comments)
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 6, 2003 19:34 UTC (Tue) by alan (subscriber, #4018) [Link] The title is still misleading. 'Better' at what? I only see fileserving mentioned,.. so it should maybe be 'Win2003 serves files faster than RedHat Linux 8 and RHAS 2.1'.Though the underlying filesystem may be part of it,. I'd like to know if the default RH samba installation makes use of smbfs. I'd also like to see a comparison of Win2003 to linux 2.5/2.6. Very amusing to see such a broad and somewhat misleading claim made though. You'd think they'd forgotten their audience.
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 7, 2003 1:37 UTC (Wed) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] smbfs? what does that have to do with the on-disk file system? iirc, smbfs is for the client, no?
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 8, 2003 0:59 UTC (Thu) by alan (subscriber, #4018) [Link] hrrm,. samba client and server I thought. smbfs has nothing to do with the on disk filesystem. I'm simply noting that they compared fileserving performance. I am less interested than the previous poster was about the ondisk filesystem format because using the kernel smbfs support would enhance fileserving performance,. which is what was actually being compared.
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 7, 2003 0:10 UTC (Wed) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531) [Link] Seems very reminisent of the Mindcr*p HPPTD tests of a couple of years ago using stock RH boxen and extremely uber tweaked redmond boxes that, when competent Linux admins turned up and tweaked the RH boxen for the re-run, were shown to be somewhat bogus.how often do we get such test results, but I have yet to find anyone who, in a real world installation, has attained anything other than the reverse of the published results. Oh well...
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 8, 2003 20:26 UTC (Thu) by dsime (guest, #5764) [Link] You might also remember that that test was what caused MAJOR changes to the kernel's tasking code. Windows WAS better, then Linux was improved. I hope this whacked benchmark will cause a similar improvement in Linux.
|
|
||||||||||||