Slashdot Mirror
A Comparison of Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD Kernel
v1x writes "An article at OpenSolaris examines three of the basic subsystems of the kernel and compares implementation between Solaris 10, Linux 2.6, and FreeBSD 5.3.
From the article: 'Solaris, FreeBSD, and Linux are obviously benefiting from each other. With Solaris going open source, I expect this to continue at a faster rate. My impression is that change is most rapid in Linux. The benefits of this are that new technology has a quick incorporation into the system.'"
There's people who missed the point, and then there's you...
Moderators:
Before moderating CyricZ's posts, please take the time to view his posting history.
He posts a LOT and only makes stupid and/or overly obvious points, and he often mis-represents people's comments when replying.
Basically, he is full of himself, and reviewing a few of his posts reveals him.
Read this comment for more information.
That page says "128-way requires HP-UX 11i v2". Not that I'd like to jump in into a flame war, but this doesn't look like that specific system you pointed at would support your position, at least as far as 128-way systems are concerned.
The 128 CPU version of Windows Server is available, but not on all hardware. That is why DataCenter carries a disclaimer about the utilization of 128-way SMP support.
Look for R2 of Windows Server 2003 and the Vista version of Windows Server to spread out further SMP support. One of the advancements in this tree of the NT platform is the SMP performance scalability, and is currently out benchmarking pretty much anything out, even in beta.
Microsoft did drop the SMP transitional ball a bit when dealing with SMP server beyond 64cpus, Server 2003's main performance goal for SMP was built around 64-way as high end, and market hardware with new multi-core cpus is pushing that envelope. That is one of the reasons R2 of Windows 2003 server was put into production.
Hmpf! Let me guess who conducted those benchmarks... was it MS? Wait, wait - even better, it was Mindcraft!
Then again, maybe Vista *will* out-perform everything there is, along with also providing a cool new scripting... no, wait - it was a file system, right... oh, no - sorry, it was a... oh, forget it. In the end, I'll claim it'll just bring us some more eye candy, requiring a DirectX 9 card, so I better stop here.
Look, you (MS) have already lost *all* the credibility you have ever had. Show me some repeatable, fair, real-world benchmark results, and you'll convince me. Empty marketing phrases ("is currently out benchmarking pretty much anything out, even in beta") won't buy you anything around here.
On top of it all, your reply was a non-sequitur. The original poster said "no MS on 128-way machines." Then some troll came along, called him arrogant and posted a link which was supposed to prove him wrong (I guess). I pointed out the link explicitely said "128-way NOT with MS". Then you kicked in with some clumsy C&P from your PR folder, claiming stuff and providing zero evidence for it. If you want to stay on-topic, post a link to a commercially available 128-way systems running under Windows. If you want to change the topic - fine with me, but then at least try to provide some evidence for your claims
Are you crazy?
A) There are NO BENCHMARKS outside of Microsoft on the TPS of the R2 Server or Vista - They are not released products, specific performance tests and posting of is prohibited under the NDA. So yes, I guess they are done my Microsoft, and companies like mine. (This is one of the stupidest things I have had to respond to.)
B) My non-sequitur post? Go re-read my posts under the topics they were in response to and see if you can follow that logic. I never claimed that NT was available on the SPECIFIC HP 128-way product link from HP. Yes it will run on it, but it is NOT EVEN supported by Microsoft in this configuration.
Most companies are waiting for the R2 Server release to get full support from Microsoft on more than 64-way systems. However 128-way systems are running NT as we speak - go look it up yourself you lazy troll.
Did you miss the whole thing about how the development process of Windows Server 2003 was geared for 64-way SMP, hence the refocus on Microsoft's part with R2 Server and Vista Server? My original post about NT knowing how to support 128 CPUs was just that, IT DOES, go fact check it yourself. It is not a Toy OS or Toy Kernel technology by any means.
For the love of God you *nix trolls, it was the 'best of the best' *nix OS technology designers than designed the NT kernel, made it a hybrid to avoid the pitfalls of the two prodominate kernel technologies. Cutler was a VMS and Unix guru, not a freaking Windows person. If you hate Microsoft so much that you are willing to defame one of the best *nix and OS designers ever, then you are stepping on your own products just to bash Microsoft.
BTW, Windows 2003 is almost a 3 year old Server OS, and you and others are trying to box it into your view of what is acceptable for proof. What products it is shipping on, etc, etc. Why don't you go ask Microsoft or look it up yourself if this is too mind boggling for you to grasp.
Admit you are anti-Microsoft everything troll, you even had to take shots at Vista on a post about NT's Kernel architecture.
I should hold you to the same standard of hyperbole you want to hold others to, so comments about Vista like yours here will not fly, post us links that prove what you said about Vista is true.
- Oh you can't, they are opinion, go troll someone else - I wasted too much time on you.