Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) [LWN.net]

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Posted May 6, 2003 19:34 UTC (Tue) by alan (subscriber, #4018)
In reply to: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) by southey
Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Posted May 7, 2003 1:37 UTC (Wed) by elanthis (subscriber, #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.