Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Posted May 7, 2003 5:48 UTC (Wed) by cott (guest, #6931)
Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Umm... Who uses a file server in this capacity, anymore? My company
certainly doesn't. I mean, being able to map a drive is great for sharing
files and all, but using Samba *or* Windows Networking for anything that
requires high-performance file access is just stupid.

We have an application that requires high-speed access to data and we
used to do that ourselves, using a Windows or Novell server. Then, we
discovered that our application was about 15x faster when we changed to
Unix and ran directly on the server. Now, the only way we recommend
running our software is either by Telnetting to the server or through a
DBMS.

I guess my point is: raw file service is a miniscule part of what the
typical file server does. Who cares if WS2k3 is better at that one thing?

---

(Log in to post comments)