Slashdot Mirror
NT faster than Linux in tests
Mike_Miller writes "The lastest Mindcraft Study claims that Microsoft Windows NT Server is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a file server and 3.7 times faster as a web server. Their white paper shows that NT beats Linux on every test. " Anyone have a critique?
Fished out of dejanews -- the Mindcraft folks used the pseudonym 'will@whistlingfish.net'
(If this was posted earlier, I didn't see it...)
Can anybody here respond to this?
Hi Everybody,
We're considering using Linux + Apache as a web server. The hardware
is a 4-processor 400 MHz (Xeon) server with 1GB of ram, a RAID controller,
and six disks. We have Redhat 5.2 installed and compiled an SMP version
of the 2.2.2 Linux kernel. For the web server we used the latest 2.0.3
version of Apache.
The scenario: we're bangin' on this web server with a bunch of clients
to try and get a handle on its capacity. Simple static HTML requests,
no heavy CGI yet. My Apache server is tuned up, MaxClients is 460.
I recompiled with HARD_SERVER_LIMIT set to 500. Limit on number of
processes is 512, imit on file descriptors is 1024.
The problem: the server performs well, delivering in excess of 1300
HTTP GET requests per second. But then performance drops WAAAY
off, like down to 70 connections per second. We're not swapping,
the network isn't saturated (4 x 100Mbit nets), disks are hardly used,
but the system is just crawling. If it were saturated then performance
should level off, not drop like this. Neither vmstat nor top show
anything unusual. No error messages in the web server. Its puzzling.
Any ideas? Any tips, suggestions, or pointers would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Okay, folks. So we have a bit of egg on our face for this one, because nobody (to my knowledge) has really stepped forward with large-server Linux benchmarks which demonstrate anything differently. It may be that Mindcraft royally screwed up, or it might be that Linux really is slower than NT for a certain set of benchmarks -- the truth is more likely a combination of these factors.
If Linux is going to be treated as a serious operating system by the majority of the IT community, it's going to have to step up to the plate and demonstrate scalability and performance which does rival NT server in this area. Most of our knowledge about Linux-vs-NT performance is somewhat anecdotal -- we haven't really "put our money where our mouth is" and shown objectively that Linux can outperform NT in these areas.
Rather than dismissing this study as FUD, I think we could learn a few valuable lessons from this study. We should seek to understand why the benchmark results weren't as great as we would have liked. We should fix any obvious bugs or misfeatures in Samba, Apache, and the Linux kernel which stood in the way of higher performance. And we should stive to improve the entire system to make it be a true NT rival.
We have a lot going for us. First of all, we can innovate at a much more rapid pace than Microsoft -- so hopefully within just a few short months (and I'm being pessimistic!) we could demonstrate a high-performance Linux file and Web server which kicks NT's butt all over the place.
Nobody said building a high-performance, scalable Internet server operating system was easy. Let's get to it!
Matt Welsh, mdw@metalab.unc.edu
The beowulf newsgroup had a couple short threads a couple months ago about consistently abyssmal performance on redhat 5.2 SMP machines running 2.x with > 512 MB of RAM. The two threads [ one, two] deal with users who had horrendous performance problems with their new machines (both running 2.2.2, the same kernel as in the report) when they used more than 512 MB of ram, but the performance jumped right back up when they used 512 or less. Check out the articles to see how bad the performance was; it's pretty surprising, and presents an interesting opportunity for detractors of linux:
Linux definitely has some hardware/kernel combinations that would seem OK by design on paper, but exhibit peculiar behavior in practice, especially with SMP. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the testers (or financial backers) hand-picking kernels/hardware configurations that could affect results while seeming perfectly viable to the layman.
It seems very likely to me that if Microsoft did not outwardly donate the hardware to the testing company, they at least made suggestions on its configuration. The open nature of linux development and bug disclosure could easily be used by companies wishing to stage biased demonstrations; Microsoft almost certainly does a thorough job tracking linux kernel development and bug reports.
-- Scott