| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)Posted May 6, 2003 19:10 UTC (Tue) by chill (guest, #11031)Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)
While there is no doubt MS focused on improving file serving performance in the latest
(Log in to post comments)
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 6, 2003 20:47 UTC (Tue) by backtick (guest, #364) [Link] If you read the article and the report, you see all the benchmarks are based on exactly one thing: PEAK throughput. Hrm. If I want to download a 100 MB file, let's review the possible scenarios involved.A) Computer 1 downloads the file at a initial rate of 20 MB/sec for 1 second, then drops to 1 MB/sec for the remainder of the file. Total DL time is 81 seconds, with a peak rate of 20 MB/sec. B) Computer 2 downloads the file at an initial rate of 8 MB/sec for 1 second, then drops to 4 MB/sec for the remainder of the file. Total DL time is 24 seconds, with a peak rate of 8 MB/sec. sarcasm=ON Benchmarks without the supporting data (which the testing folks refuse to release) are useless. Only open becnhmarks, with the *complete* raw data, mean anything.
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 7, 2003 5:38 UTC (Wed) by C.Gherardi (subscriber, #4233) [Link] > If you read the article and the report, you see all the benchmarks are based on exactly one thing: PEAK throughput.I was listening to Andrew Tridgells talk from LCA 2003 recently and he mentions this. Samba tries to have a good throughput in all scenarios whereas Microsoft has a peak performance and an exponential falloff as load increases. Some may find it an interesting listen. http://mirrors.uwa.edu.au/lca2003/loopback/papers/Tridge_Talk/Abstract.html
|
|
||||||||||||