Slashdot Mirror
The Mindcraft Debacle: Part MCXVI
Quite a number of people wrote in to alert us to the Salon story about the Mindcraft survey. Andrew Leonard, does a great job of tracing the trail, including the information about how Mindcraft is asking for help from Linus, but is not apparently giving him the information that he needs. Ah, the joys of industry. Mindcraft has agred to re-do the tests, with Linus' help, as aforementioned, but is continuing to be...less then forthcoming about the tests. Meanwhile, Microsoft is trumpeting the original study.
I can't beleive that Microsoft is promoting this study! You'd think they'd have enough sense to bury this thing; pretend it didn't happen, file it in /dev/null. Amazing.
WOW!!! I've had strange probings coming from that box!!! Perhaps it's a "secret" anti-linux project within Microsoft? Tide - cleans Linux completely, get it?
Tell them what is on your MIND, and they'll CRAFT it?
I wonder what would happen if every Linux, Apache, and Samba bigwigs and gods decide to tweak the test bed system just so it can get equal tune up treatment like NT. (I think Linus is really pissed at Mindcraft)
I seriously wonder what power would be unleash if these "dream team" actually get down to work redoing the report.
whoaaa......
I am afraid to imagine. I bet the network will be able to withstand Nuclear attack, 20 slashdot peak attack, and still have some power left to stick tongue out at Bill Gate.
I think we ought to write Mindcraft to let Linus et all. tweak the system for fairness.
who care about comparing to NT, I just want to know what awesome thing they will do to the system...
I have been seeing tide*.microsoft.com pop up in #LinuxHelp on efnet quite a few times lately. WEIRD
FYI, just about all of Mindcraft's revenues come from Microsoft. Microsoft contracts Mindcraft to conduct studies. I doubt Mindcraft would continue to get M$'s business if they told the truth.
Is why are we screwing around with Mindcraft at all? They have a track record of biased tests and having anything at all to do with them simply lends them credibilty where they should have none.
Instead, why doesn't Redhat take some of those corporate dollars people have been throwing at them and duplicate this test on Linux turf. It would be biased, too, but at least it'll spotlight that numbers can be made to say whatever people want them to. And Redhat, I'm sure, would publish ALL the details of their system set-up.
From this evidence, could it be that Microsoft rigs the tests, gives the results to Mindcraft, has Mindcraft do a writeup, put their name on it, and and then publish the results?
The Salon article also said that Mindcraft consisted of 2 or 3 people. Wouldn't it be easy for Microsoft to spin off this so-called company and pretend it's independent?
I am afraid this isn't all that unreasonable IMHO...
Look at the USENET thread, you will find that there were not many (public) replies. Also, the Apache was somewhat tuned.
(The hardware was pretty hot, which is usually not good for Linux.)
I don't think M$ support would help much, but at least it would be possible to find someone you could pay to set up a web server and tune it on NT. Linux web consultants are still hard(er) to come by.
Bottom line; A medium qualified person would perhaps be able to set up and tune a NT web server as described. But Linux? Not when people don't reply on USENET. Having Linus Thorvalds and Alan Cox at site is perhaps doable for a benchmark, but not for running a business.
Still: I don't trust benchmarks (especially not the sponsored ones), and Apache is still the most popular web server by far. There is probably a reason for this (apart from it being free).
Instead of a 'study' by some lab the test should be a competition where identical HW is provided to a Linux group and an NT Group (and IRIX, SunOS, etc if applicable).
The moderator then confirms the HW is identical for test runs and then runs the tests. The moderator probably ought be a HW vendor delivering the multiple OSes for its HW.
Why even bother trying to help Mindcraft produce a "fairer" test. Mindcraft will never allow a benchmark that shows Linux beating the pants off of Win2000 to be released, because that would put them out of business. MS doesn't pay people to make them look bad.
Linus' and Alan's involvement will just allow them to put an official seal of approval on their MS propoganda.
Isn't this the guy who answered the questions concerning VinodV and the Halloween docs (check the notes at Halloween 4)? Why is he again? There's something odd going on.
I can smell an evil plot forming somewhere deep at Redmond's dungeons...
Uhm. Dell is an investor in RedHat. Dell delivered the hardware. RedHat was the Linux distribution used... Instead of letting individual contributors handle this, RedHat and Dell should be able to do something themselves...
I think you're referring to C2 certification. This is something that is supposed to be required of government machines. It doesn't just certify the software, but the "platform", meaning the software on a particular hardware setup. There were 3 platforms that were certified using NT 3.51. I don't remember what hardware. You are correct though that they were only certified as non-networked machines. If you connect them to a network, then they do not meet the security criteria.
Unfortunately, the C2 certification requirement has not been enforced. It's kind of sickening to watch the government wring its hands and rant about the coming "digital Pearl Harbor" when they have screwed themselves and the rest of us through their own corruption. They pay Microsoft for machines that don't meet their own security standards. How insane is that? As far as I'm concerned, the idiots who chose Microsoft software for the servers should be tossed in jail for treason. They knowingly, or through their own incompetence compromised the security of the our country's computer systems. Even though most of the most secure servers are probably not running Windows, there are enough that crackers can break into all sorts of government installations. If the government is so concerned about security, you'd think they'd start purchasing only securable machines. Just another symptom of a government that can't find its ass with both hands.
in their propaganda at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews/042199. htm... or that the NT system was tuned, but not the Linux system. It also doesn't mention what Microsoft would charge you for the software licenses and support to tune your system identically to the one used in the test (I suspect it's around $25,000 for the M$ configuration vs. $50 for the Linux? Can you say price/performance?) I find these omissions to be bordering on fraud.
On the other hand, Linux himself says "Linux works best on dual-CPU systems." and "there are still some single-semaphore issues in 2.2" Obviously, scalability to four-way and greater SMP is a weakness of Linux which has not yet been addressed -- probably due to the fact that not very many Linux kernel hackers have access to a $50,000 quad Xeon CPU server! (Yes, Virgina, there ARE some advantages to being a multi-billion dollar company.)
Another question: if you've got the bucks to afford this system, why not by a compably priced system from Sun or SGI that would have blown the doors off of NT in a fair test?
The worst thing about this situation is that it will probably change the priorities of Linux kernel development... Linux should be proactive, not reactive to the latest FUD blowing out of Redmond. Linux was, first and foremost, an OS designed to run efficiently on cheap hardware, and it best serves the needs of it's user community by continuing to make that it's main emphasis. Still, I would expect to see this scalability issue and others at least partially addressed in 2.3.
I think you're referring to C2 certification. This is something that is supposed to be required of government machines. It doesn't just certify the software, but the "platform", meaning the software on a particular hardware setup. There were 3 platforms that were certified using NT 3.51. I don't remember what hardware. You are correct though that they were only certified as non-networked machines. If you connect them to a network, then they do not meet the security criteria.
Microsoft has touted NT 4 as being C2 certified as well. See this story about Ed Curry, a Microsoft consultant who tried to blow the whistle on them for this lie. Here is where you can read the summary of the NT certification. Note these lines:
Because the evaluated configuration does not include a network environment, both products are considered stand-alone workstations.
A network configuration of the Windows NT platform is currently pending evaluation agreement.
This implies that NT was supposed to undergo testing in a networked environment. Since certification was never granted in this case, one can assume that either the testing was never done, or NT did not pass the tests.
Unfortunately, the C2 certification requirement has not been enforced. It's kind of sickening to watch the government wring its hands and rant about the coming "digital Pearl Harbor" when they have screwed themselves and the rest of us through their own corruption. They pay Microsoft (and various OEMs) for machines that don't meet their own security standards. How insane is that? As far as I'm concerned, the idiots who chose Microsoft software for the servers should be tossed in jail for treason. They knowingly, or through their own incompetence compromised the security of our country's computer systems. Even though most of the most secure servers are probably not running Windows, there are enough that crackers can break into all sorts of government installations. If the government is so concerned about security, you'd think they'd start purchasing only securable machines. Just another symptom of a government that can't find its ass with both hands.
It was actually Windows NT 3.5 with Service Pack 3 that was evaluated. Not NT 3.51.
One of the nice things about the Mindcraft report
is that they give a fairly detailed description of
their test setup. It would be nice if someone
could try to reproduce what they Mindcraft observed.
This would allow us to either find the problem
with the Linux setup and fix it, or else it would
point to the tests being rigged. It would also
tend to keep everyone honest.
Don't make the mistake of lumping all NT people together into the same boat. When I started computing (mumble, mumble) years ago, IBM was the top dog and boatloads of business executives bought IBM... you know why. At least some of us NT admins don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter, the same way as we didn't have much choice about Big Blue.
Techs don't run companies; business people run companies. Continuing to attack NT on a technical level is a voice which won't be heard by the people who make the decisions. If CEOs and CFOs are going to pay attention to something other than MS it won't be because they've been roundly flamed for asking newbie questions in the Linux newsgroups. In this battle I sometimes think that techs are their own worst enemies. MS knows this and also knows that until it changes, Uncle Bill won't have many sleepless nights.
Mike
I use to be a huge and I mean huge NT fan. I told everyone how stable it is and I have never seen unix beofre and the command line and lack of compaidblity with windows95 games turned me off and made me an NT fan untill ms released diredctx 5 and NT couldn't run the nwer games :-(.
I became an ms advocate out of zdnet and fud in newspapers and reading ms website at the time when everyone considered it non biased. THis was deffinely befoer the huge doj trails that showed how hinest ms really was. I read about how stable ms was in the Networking essientials book and course. I got all excited about NT and in the labs when the instructor executed an app and it froze and then he demonstrated the NT taskmanger and unfroze it and explained how ms uses a thing called threads that were borrwed in theunix world so like unix the kernel can stop an app immiedately and free up memory. I was amazed and thought that unix was good for its time and that NT was the wave of the future. IF NT has all the stuff unix has then why move to unix? However I got the NT server cd and tried to install it and it crashed with the bluscreen of death in my isntalltion. I rebooted and because NT was properly installed and startup menu was set to load the roken setup immideately I was screwed. NT would freeze each tiemn I turned the computer on and I inserted a windows95 bootdisk (I still had w95 on my system) and I got the error NTldr not found?? What the ^*())__)%. THis is was a winodws 95 boot disk, how the hell did my computer all of the sudden require ntloader. I had to reformat my whole disk and I lost everything. After this I finally got NT server and workstation to boot and gues what? NO graphics, no compilers no cool tools nothing!! I had nothing expect disk administrator and backup. THATS IT! NT server had more stuff like licsense manager and wins manger and dns manager as well as server manager! BOY THOSE ARE ALOT OF FUN TO PLAY WITH!:-)
I got use to nnot playing games after dierectx5 came out and I figured this was NT. Just right your own games liek the old days. I then read a wired magazine artlve called linux. THe best os that (n)ever was. It talked about how linux was the coolest os ever but its opensource roots made it an unknown future. THis was late 97, early 98. IF finally decided to try it because I could program and it came with mroe tools and maybe unix was not dead. The industry was switching back to unix after NT failed in early 98. I am just finshing my mcse and I can say that all hope is not lost. THe press puts linux in a positive light and bad press about NT is mroe and more previalant. THe NT craze only started 2 and a half years ago when people got all brainwashed about ms through office and ie and thought it was unstopable but after people believed the press hype and tried it, the backlash began and now the press supports the backlash. NT is a great os to put food on the table for beginers with no college degrees like myself but I will stick with linux and hopefully use unix as I move up the corporate ladder.
And if I want unbiased news I come to Slashdot right?
>
/.
Sturgeon's Law: 80% of everything is crap!
:)
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
The pizza guy says it's $12. Buddah gives hime a $20 asks for his change. The pizza guy says:
"Change must come from within"
1) There's been a lot of noise about how transparent these 'tests' are - how everyone knows that Mickysoft is cooking the numbers. That isn't actually true. The Linux community, and anyone else who cares to look long and hard at the evidence will know that the numbers are cooked, but no one else will. Big Business and their big IT directors and managers will believe Mickysoft - because they always do. This could be more damaging that we realise.
2) What needs to happen now is for RedHat (or the vendor of whatever Linux they used) to get together with Dell and recreate the test environment as near to the original as they can, documenting the results *and* the configurations.
Take the war to Mickysoft - why let Billy boy get away with murder?
Maybe they're doing a bit more than rigging tests - perhaps they're testing discrete pieces of Linux and Apache which they're plagarising to include in IIS and NT.....
Maybe....
;)
Setting up Apache is easy; just read the documentation. Any clown that know what a process is, what permissions are and know how to use vi, pico or emacs can configure apache. Fer frigging krissakes; I set it up on Win95 in 10 minutes; and that was harder than on linux.
Part of the Salon commentary was regarding the Linux communities reaction of the "Will" character revealed what he was doing. They claimed that he said it would degenerate to flames, insults, etc. The comments I see here reflect that same sort of spirit.
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen much (only a couple) of decent posts trying to comment on the fundamentals. What are the fundamentals?
Simple, its the data that was presented, and what might be wrong with it. Why would Apache crap out with more threads?
I think to address anything else, i.e. the method that they choose to try to get help from the Linux community, is just avoiding the real question. When debates turn to name calling, usually its the side without any merit that initiates it. So if the Linux community really wants to put their best foot forward, then I feel they should respond in a more proper manner.
I read the Salon article, I just printed out the MindCraft results (I have not read them). How many people here read he whole report and tried to assimilate some answers or pertinent questions regarding the hardware/os setup or its problems? How many are just _too_ quick to judge this whole thing as bogus?
I'm not trying to take any position here. I'm just trying to make sure people wise up and try to address the real issues, lest you become labeled zealots like the MacOS crowd!
Nice idea. But don't try to duplicate Mindcraft's config settings. How about publish results of testing based on an level playing field benchmark where Microsoft has already published results on 4-way Xeons? Like SPECweb96 (www.specbench.org).
Their post was completely bogus! I saw it when it was there (before the test) and saw a person who wasn't giving out enough info to help them, and was weak on the basics.. I'm not going to waste my time on someone like that for free.
As far as tuning goes.. Apache with min spare servers at 5 with max spare at 10 and no persistant with max per child at 1?!? That config should have had min spare at 256 with max spare at 500 and request per child at around 1000.
Give it up.
wow an optical mouse?! now that is innovative technology...
it woudn't bear any resemblance to the optical mouse that is on the 10 year-old SGI 4d/25 running in my basement would it?
Andrew Tridgell is the man you want here, he's the ultimate samba guru and all round linux networkin smart guy. He's also in Australia, which might cause a problem, but nothing telnet couldn't fix.
- rip47
When Mindcraft starts testing automobiles.
How much does a license for NT cost now? A little more than a Linux CD, I guess. The difference in software should go to the hardware side, if we want to compare configurations that cost the same overall.
All the complaints about "rigging" the test are forgetting that the real problem with these benchmarks is that many of the were originally written with a vendors cooperation. Vendors know when some part of their software runs very well and when some part does not. Benchmark writers are then "advised" what operations are important and which are not, depending on who is paying for it. These benchmarks eventually become "standard" as people forget their tainted past.
MS's IIS is very fast on certain cgi script operations. A benchmark that is heavily loaded with these ops will favor IIS no matter what the hardware, tuning, or operating system.
A re-test using the same benchmark is such a very, very bad idea.
Quote from May 1999 issue of the MCP magazine about Linux. (www.mcpmag.com)
"Thus, as would be expected, NT performs better than Samba as a file server for low numbers of clients. As the client load rises, however, even though Samba is implemented in user mode, the better scalability of Linux and Unix-based systems begins to show. A recent Ziff-Davis NetBench benchmark run by Sm@rt Reseller magazine showed Samba on Linux out-performing NT on identical Intel-based hardware by factor of two once the client load was grater than 12 simultaneous clients."
Page 32 (Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine)
Come on, guys. The writing is on the wall. Microsoft has been pumping up Linux in all sorts of subtle ways. They don't want to be caught actively pumping the software, but DAMN, they're doing just about everything they can otherwise. Drawing media attention? Leaked internal memos? Porting software? Horribly biased tests?
Microsoft has never made such serious mistakes in so short of a period of time with the rest of its competitors.
It would be humorous if microsoft got slashdotted by all of us trying to read theyre anti linux propoganda saying that nt is a better web server.
It's like Alan Cox said in the Salon article, they hope to be able to say something like, "NT beats Linux by 600x with aid from Linus Torvalds himself!!" conveniently not mentioning that it was limited access, not full information, and Linus only able to give guesses and suggestions.
"Microsoft Daily News"? And I thought those weirdos over at The 700 Club were biased..
C2 certification is not mandatory for all government systems, only for few of them. However POSIX is required, and this is why Windows NT has POSIX subsystem, even though no one uses it because of its extreme brokenness.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Can anyone else picture Gates wringing his hands at the pure joy in seeing the results from this round of testing?
"Even with help from the top two Linux minds, namely kernel inventor Linus Torvalds and top lieutenant Alan Cox, Linux was unable to match the performance of the NT machine under test."
If Mindcraft is being as unhelpful in giving information to these two as they were in replying to Usenet posts for help, you're going to see a steaming pile of FUD right in the middle of that report.
Let's face it, the Mindcraft results are going to say EXACTLY what the Microsoft marketing forces want them to say. If the marketing people say there's a perception that Linux is difficult to get support for, you can damn well bet you're going to see forced substantiation of that claim in their report notes.
This second test, if it continues under the same sort of conditions that Salon notes, will NOT be any better than the previous. In fact, given the level of expertise being "consulted" in the new test, this result could hurt the Linux image much, much more.
I thought I wanted a career. It turns out I just wanted paychecks.
The original test used quad-Xeon machines and I'm
sorry but I think that's unrealistic -- how many
shops use quad-Xeon-processor machines for web serving
and file serving? I think dual-PII-processor is the
more common workhorse in this industry, and I'm
pretty confident Linux beats NT on dual-processor
hardware.
They should be testing "typical" hardware
platforms rather than using hardware so maxed-out
that hardly anyone would own such a machine
these days, or at least not for plain-ol'
web serving -- database serving maybe but not
for web serving and file serving -- that's
ridiculous!
...and I think the whole point of Linux is you
can run a pretty fast web server on *cheap*
hardware so you really don't need quad-Xeon
w/ 1 GB of RAM to serve some serious enterprise
level web traffic anyway -- a plain ol' pentium box
will work just fine.
What we need is an open test conducted by a trusted third party. MS can show up with their 50 drones and go head to head against a handful of Linux/Samba/Apache developers.
That would be something to read about, instead of all these bogus benchmarks payed for by Bill.
TedC
It's really refreshing to see the power of the 'net in rooting out the obviously slanted "truth" that MS would have folks believe. Again, this whole debacle just proves that MS still doesn't "get it" about the Internet/WWW/usenet. When you put something out for mass peer review, it's going to get hammered. Well, MS just got the bejeesus pounded out of it.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Quoth Ed Muth, group project manager at MS:
"Microsoft was pleased but not surprised by Mindcraft's results concerning the excellent performance of Windows NT Server."
Why am I not surprised either.
RAID 4 is the dog-ass-slow write performance because there is only one parity disk. RAID 5 is striped parity with the pairity bits hitting each disk. It is slightly slower than a single drive for writing, but significantly faster than mirrored drives (the slowest write of all RAID systems).
RAID 5 is the 2nd fastest reading system (losing only RAID 1 across an equal number of disks and, for example, 5 disk RAID 5 is basically equal reading to 4 disk RAID 1).
If you have hardware RAID like these servers, then you're not going to notice anything with write speed.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Each disk you throw in slows your writing down a lot. Not so with RAID 5.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
They had a god-awefully small StartServers and MaxServers line as well as a MaxSpareServers 1. They also ran apache out of inetd.
They did *NOT* tune apache upward.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
RAID 0 is striping. In fact, RAID 0 will speed up writes and reads if it is implemented correctly. Many companies don't do this and simply create a volume set so the 2nd and later drives don't get written to until the first is full.
RAID 1 is mirroring. That means everything you write to drive 1 gets written to drive 2 and drive 3 and drive 4, etc. That's X copies getting written where X is equal to the number of drives.
RAID 5 is striping with striped parity. Unlike RAID 4 which places a bottleneck on the parity drive, RAID 5 spreads the parity across all drives. Parity calculation is often done very fast in hardware, like on those *hardware* RAID controllers.
Now you've just gotten almost an hour worth of CS lecture in 3 paragraphs. If I have to do that again, I'm going to bill you.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
It's very obvious you don't know how RAID 5 works.
First, yes it's an XOR (at least you got that right). However, reading takes just over x+1/x amount the time of reading from a RAID 1 set. Just over being the time it takes to do an XOR and comparison.
Writing, however, takes x+1/x amount the time as it takes to write to a true RAID 0 (aka striped, no parity) set. Again, the extra time is the time it takes to calculate the parity (XORing is very cheap, in fact, on the i386 set, xor ax,ax is faster than move ax,0).
So, again, what was that?
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
You lose.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
If I am wrong, it should be trivial to correct me. No one has.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
I don't know where you got your ideas from.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
If you're looking for optimal performance you have to a) know what you're doing. and b) compile the packages yourself, including only the options you need.
I also don't know where you got your ideas about RAID. RAID 1 is what you want for higher performance on a web server. RAID 5 shows little thought went into the choice.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I don't know where you got your ideas from.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
If you're looking for optimal performance you have to a) know what you're doing. and b) compile the packages yourself, including only the options you need.
I also don't know where you got your ideas about RAID. RAID 1 is what you want for higher performance on a web server. RAID 5 shows little thought went into the choice.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I'd run RAID1 on a real server - in a second.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Perhaps you need to read up some on RAID - RAID1 is the fastest and safest of all the RAID standards. It's what you use if cost is not an issue. For a server, that tends to be the case.
For some good introductory docs on RAID try the Software-RAID mini HOWTO.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I think they were aiming with telescopic sights... We managed to get twice the performance they did out of a SINGLE PIII500...
,hacker Perl another Just)'
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I see mindcraft trying to pull itself out of the ditch it threw itself into by strutting it's stuff about NT beating the pants off of Linux, but I have a comment:
They documented that they did some serious tweaking of the NT server, even so beyond what microsoft suggests for reliabilty. They had to get that information from somewhere, they probally had a MS tech either over their shoulder or on the phone telling them to apply this reg tweak, apply this patch to bind the nic's to each CPU....
Why can't we do the same for linux? Why can't Linus and have direct access to the server that they're supposed to be helping on?
They must be trying very hard to "proove" that NT is "better" then Linux.
da w00t. mtfnpy?
" shoudl work
da w00t. mtfnpy?
Mindcraft did publish the performance of their NT box, so there is a target to aim for.
Is this a rhetorical question?
The reason Mindcraft is calling on Linux and Alan for help is to recover their own lost legitimacy. The mainstream tech media is openly calling the integrity of their work into question. If, as some worry, they try to attach Linus and Alan's names to another rigged test without giving them proper access to the test environment, then they risk being denounced by Linus and Alan themselves... which would almost certainly be reported in ANY press coverage. That would just expose the tests for what they really are - paid FUD.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
You missed this interview with Linus some time ago where he said (sort of late answer to Tanenbaum's "Linux is obsolete"), mainly, that microkernels were the panacea for researchers only, but that in real world you could have most of microkernel's benefits without the overhead with a monolithic kernel and good code design...
Before this Linux testing disaster, Mindcraft had performed similar comparisons between NT4/NetWare 5, NT4/NetWare4.11 and NT4/Solaris. They are, historically, a professional, unbiased testing shop who can accurately perform tests that will produce whatever Microsoft wants - Microsoft seems to be their largest paying benchmark customer. They also did some tests for Netscape, too, "proving" that Netscape blows away NetWare for directory management.
You'd think that if a company pays for tainted benchmarks, they could at least ask Mindcraft to cook the numbers less blatantly.
THe best way to do this test, I think, would be to run the NT benchmarks, then let Linus, Alan, Brian, Andrew, and Dean (I apologize for any gurus I forgot) have their way with the same server for testing. Let the Mindcraft stooges watch. They may just learn something.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Since RedHat and and other Linux based companies have the most to lose from this, i suggest that they do a test on similar hardware and publish everything that they did, and what results they got.
However waiting for a company to do something is a stupid way to go. I suggest some non-profit linux organization find out how much it will cost to purchase one of these machines, and create a fund where people can contribute money towards its purchase. Then allow folks who know about configuring it contribute information on how to do it. Publish the report, and bam, end of story. The machine could then be used for other linux related things such as hardware for linux developers to work and optimize on, or other such things. The potential for this is great since if its alot of folks will be willing to contribute to it. hell i got $10 bucks to go towards this beast.
and i am sure that the money could be raised from slashdot users alone, much less the entire community, since once the project is started, companies will try to get some press coverage by saying they helped in the project.
Anywho this is my humble opinion, and what do i know?
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
I am sure that we will do better, I wonder if they changed the hardware? I am not sure that
.rpm, do not compile unless you really
with the AMI RAID driver will do much better, but everything else should work.
I don't expect them to change hardware, and to be honest I don't want them to, it's up to us to
be real world too.
Three things I hope they do:
Use kernel 2.2.pre7 patch3, it's a very nice kernel.
More RAM, at least to the two gigabyte limit.
One OS on the drive, and real world raid5, not raid0, this is a server stupid.
The right amount of swap I have wondered and wondered about that one.
A correctly tuned apache server, at least use the
know what your doing.
SAMBA, use the damn package unless there is a GOOD reason not too.
Get rid of the enterprise edition; server is what most people will buy it's a bit more real world.
And last document better; I would feel better if I new exactly why something failed or not.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
If it was ME that was doing the testing; I WOULD compile, compile, compile.
But it's Mindcraft, I would not want them too.
It's a SERVER!!
Not just a 'Web server' both should be running RAID 5.
Think about it; would you run RAID1 on a real server?
If you do; I don't think I would trust you with my data.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.
It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .
Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.
I realize its not up to us to say whether they repeat the test, but it should just be ignored.
Summary: we already debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.
It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.
It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .
Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would trust even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.
Summary: we debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.
The only story getting out into the media is that Linux was not optimised. What's really going on is that in some areas it was pessimised.
Spread the word!
I think you've both got your RAID numbers confused. There's certainly nothing wrong with using RAID 1 on a server.
RAID 0 = concatenation/striping
RAID 1 = mirroring
RAID 5 = distributed parity
RAID 0 by itself provides no redundancy at all, it just combines several physical disks into one larger virtual disk. It can improve performance, especially if striped properly. In fact, RAID 0 on its own reduces redundancy - if one disk goes, you lose the entire volume.
RAID 1 is mirroring, which gives you redundancy, at the cost of extra storage requirements - you need two (or more) 1GB disks to get a 1GB mirrored volume. Mirroring can slightly improve read performance, and slightly disimprove write performance (everything has to be written twice, or more).
A common setup is RAID 0+1, striping and mirroring in combination.
RAID 5 is distributed parity - another form of redundancy. You can combine, say, 4 disks into one volume, with 3 disks worth of data and 1 disk worth of parity information.
RAID 5 is cheaper than 0+1, since it requires less storage. Read performance is fairly good, but here's the catch: write performance is lousy. If it's a write-intensive filesystem, don't use RAID 5.
Think about it for a minute.
Every time you write a block on a RAID 5 volume, you have to recalculate the parity for that block. That means you have to reread the parity stripe, and XOR the information before you can write the block.
Hardware RAID helps with the XOR process, but it doesn't help with rereading the disk.
If you have hardware RAID like these servers, then you're not going to notice anything with write speed.
If you're doing a lot of writes, you very definitely will notice decreased performance compared with mirroring.
Oh, save the condescending attitude. I work with RAID systems every day. Don't tell me I don't know my job.
You conveniently ignored what I said, so try to pay attention this time: to write a RAID 5 partition you must reread parity information from the disk, unless you are doing a Full-Stripe-Write; you need to write (ndisks -1 ) * stripe_size bytes of data in one operation to avoid the performance hit. Oh, and that data has to aligned on a stripe boundary, too.
Otherwise, you end up doing either a Read-Modify-Write or a Reconstruct-Write, and that's expensive.
For write-intensive filesystems, don't use RAID-5
My source for this?
Now are you going to tell Veritas that they don't understand RAID either?
First, yes it's an XOR (at least you got that right). However, reading takes just over x+1/x amount the time of reading from a RAID 1 set. Just over being the time it takes to do an XOR and comparison.
You're wrong there, too, by the way. Reading a RAID-5 volume is just as quick as reading RAID-0. No XOR'ing needs to be done when you read. And you have the cheek to accuse me of not understanding RAID-5?
Since Microsoft is using a knowingly flawed report (they admitted that the report was flawed in some South African periodical), there are good grounds to hold them responsible for false and misleading advertising. On that basis, everyone who reads this should file a complaint with the FTC at http://www.ftc.gov/ .
Now if we could only get MS-lackey Jerry Pournelle to retire, we might actually get some quality journalism.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
How redundant. How does one compare two incomparable systems? I suppose this is the "new" ground Microsoft and Mindcraft are breaking together. :P
logan
Furthermore, his Gamasutra profile says that he is a Microsoft Performance Engineer. Now isn't that damning?
This Will character has been traced even further.
So what do we need to do to head off MS's ability to say:
NT beat Linux by a factor of X with the help of Linus Torvalds himself.
Linus has pretty good media coverage and he could use that. This is such a waste of his time. I think that the Salon article was excellent and should be seeded far and wide to the press. Anyone else have observations on that? Also, any ideas on where it would be best to send pointers would be appreciated. I think it's important that the news of their latest plot be aired *before* the results of the tests are released, after which time we'll just sound like we're whining. Perhaps being in the spotlight will make them less bold in publishing their figures, as well.
I forget the name of the security certification, but it's one the US Federal government requires systems that it buys to meet.
Anyway, NT 3.51 met this certification only when NOT CONNECTTED TO A NETWORK. Only NT 3.51 meets it.
Yet MS continues to sell NT 4.0 as meeting the security certification whose name I forget.
They are one of, if not the, most blatently dishonest companies around.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I've met a few people who view Microsoft like that, but most people I've met are more cynical of MS.
They see the constant deadlines being pushed back, MS not delivering on promises, MS getting caught astroturfing in the past, new MS technologies not working as they should, and lately very hyped MS only viri, etc.
MS IS looked at as a safe choice only because we know that they will not be going out of business tommorow (hence: "You can't go wrong buying MS")
MS is going down a slippery slope, W2K(NT5) will make or break the company, if past performance is any indication, NT5 will not live up to its hype.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Of course client server has been dying lately in favor of web/application server solutions.
Sure this is a form of client/server, but the MS c/s server model was fat client, where you install a client program on 500 PCs, that take up 450megs on your PC for a "slim" install or 700megs for a full install, and require 64Meg ram to get by. This had the advantage of locking you into MS technology all around.
I also fail to see how NT is an improvement over VMS. VMS at least was a multi-user OS, and I never saw a VAX go down for anything except a hardware failure.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
You know it. They are panicking like HELL now. They are damned if they wait, and damned if they release now. They will release it soon, meaning it will be bloated, full of bugs (even more than the previous ones) and most importantly they must slash whole technologies that aren't finished like Intellimirror. And that was the major reason of the update in the first place.
:-)
Well, if they had done multiuser correctly in the first place they wouldn't have this problem. But if you start growing your technology tree from a seed called Quick and Dirty OS, what can you expect.
Windows Y2K will be the end of Microsoft's OS dominance, you can count on it. (Still, I don't want them to go completely bankrupt. Age of Empires 2 and that new optical USB mouse look sweet!)
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
There's an old quote, attributed to Ghandi, and often cited in linux advocacy:
These four stages of victory map nicely onto what's happened and is happening between Microsoft and Linux:First they ignore you. Microsoft did this for years, not really surprising anybody.
Then they laugh at you This comes from from all levels, including Gates himself, and mostly takes the form of FUD. Do you really want an OS developed in some guy's garage? Is linux going to be here tomorrow? Linux has no roadmap. Can linux really be well-tested? I consider all this FUD to be a form of laughing at linux; it's really too indirect to be considered fighting.
Then they fight you The Mindcrap Affair places us full-square in stage three. Microsoft is actively fighting, trying to bloody the penguin's nose (beak?). Granted, they're fighting dirty, but they are fighting. And get used to it; we're probably going to see a lot more of this from Microsoft.
So why is this good news? Because it puts linux one step closer to stage four: Then you win. And it won't happen soon enough for me.
--JT
Let [Red Hat|Caldera|SuSE|et al] buy the hardware for the servers and everybody bring your machine, we'll knock an NT Server out and benchmark a Linux Server. It shouldn't be THAT hard to do.
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
When I worked in an NT shop this summer, those MSCEs thought NT was the best thing since sliced bread. They laughed and couldn't believe it when I formatted my drive and installed Linux. They would believe this FUD without ever questing it.
That is unless some mainstream mags like PC Week published a counter explaining it was bogus. I don't think they have...
Anyone know?
Romans 10:9-10
This summer I worked with some MCSEs. They think NT is the greatest thing in the world. When I told them about Linux and critized NT they gave me a book to read. The whole thing was written such that anyone who had not used it would sell their soul to it. It gave the whole background of how Microsoft hired the guys from Digital that made VAX. They had OS experience before so they could learn from their mistakes and make a new OS from the ground up. They talked about the client server based approach and how the kernel follows this design.. blah blah. And of course, they use the scallable, reliable, portable 'It runs on alpha ;)', buzzwords. In fact, those buzzwords are a lot of the NT cert exam. But to get back to the point, they believe it all. "98 is a peice of crap but not NT, here.. read this and you'll see" It's really really sad but sooooo very true.
I do wish all Linuk was mkLinux though. I think the microkernel design is a cool way to do it even if having everything pipelined is a bit faster.
Romans 10:9-10
The way M$ doc referes to client/server is the internals of the OS. For instance, the posix layer would pass infomation to the kernel layer.
In this case, posix is client and kernel is server.
Sorry, I forgot to specify before.
Romans 10:9-10
The study is supposed to be directed towards IT professionals and assorted PHBs that are involved in setting future OS direction, coming up with scaling plans, hardware and software budgets for the next budget period, et cetera.
These people are asking (or at least should be): what should I be running six months to a year from now in order to handle the predicted traffic and server load?
Considering how quickly the semi-conductor industry is still moving, I think 1 GB quad-Xeon boxes are going to be more or less the standard new server box in a years time.
Of course, Win NT scales to 4 processors so badly that Microsoft is artificially retarding the development of SMP hardware, so I could easily be wrong and we'll be stuck with 2-way SMP for longer.
For example, there is almost no available Intel hardware bigger than 4-way SMP, even though handling more processors is well understood: Sun's entry-level(!) enterprise server E450 handles up to 8. There is nothing keeping the Intel hardware vendors from building bigger boxes besides the limitations of MS operating systems.
Wow. A relatively clue-filled news outlet. One that's not geek-centric and can talk to the outside world.
/. ? :) )
A refreshing change from ZD!
(CmdrTaco: can you get Andrew to do a piece or two for
--
The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge. You get it in the end.
I get the idea that the MCSE's you worked with are pretty junior, and not represenative of most MS engineers.
I've worked on-and-off with NT since 1994 (shit - 5 years!), and generally the MS technical community is very cynical about Microsoft's business practices and marketing, and especially suspect of MS's technical claims or benchmarks. Many of the folks I've worked with have been through the Microsoft PR gristmill with Novell, OS/2, and various midrange systems, and have seen it all before.
While things like the Mindcraft study will impress the totally clueless PHBs and the Gee Whiz NT admins, no technical person with experience dealing with MS would give the thing a moments worth of thought. Even the ZD "PC Week" article essential was headlined "MS rigs benchmark".
Microsoft's user loyalty is a mile wide and an inch deep - don't forget that when dealing with MS Zombies. When the Unix/Linux tide starts rising, they'll follow right along.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Micrsoft so proud of the survey while everybody knows it's fake.
Does everybody know it's a fake?? Microsoft is aiming this type of crap at senior management: People who have limited capacity for critical thinking and would rather have their homework done for them by "independent" reviews.
One would hope that their technical experts would set them straight but unfortunately with senior management, once the mind is set, it's a helluva task to change their mind.
The reason no one replied to his message is that he gave *NO* information on what he was doing. Saying, I have a 4 XEON and I want to run a server is far from enough. Looking at the orginal posting, I did not see any discussion of kind of netcards, how much CGI, or even what kind of business they were doing. They just posted for the token, "We asked for help" don't blame us.
The whole Mindcraft thing is a joke. Linux will never get a far shake from them with MS paying the bills.
Linux O Muerte!
The people who design planes are not the best ones to ask about flying them.
It's all well and good for Linus and Alan Cox to help tune things for a benchmark. But actually, they are not the best people to do so. The best people to do so are those with domain experience -- that is, people who implement and manage large systems using Linux.
And again, let me warn everyone: benchmarks are a moral hazard.
--------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
I can't believe the fuss.
Micrsoft so proud of the survey while everybody knows it's fake.
Saying that "NT is for mission critical applications" and is stable, is the stupidest thing ever.
(I wouldnt trust NT to feed my cat, and I don't even have a cat)
People know that they lie, and they become even less credible.
I think they make a joke of themselves, and it's quite funny, too.
In their struggle to survive Linux, they are being fools, and that will cost them costumers.
People are starting to realize what Microsoft is about.
Their crap bloatware is getting on people's nerves,
and the legal tactics are now more understood by the public (thanks to the DoJ).
But more of it, people are sick of being fed lies, and obviously bogus facts.
We don't want fake videotapes and false promises.
I'm glad to see Microsoft like that.
I'm just waiting for the big crash.
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
Between the overt attempt to fake a "groundswell" of support, the bungled videos in front of the DoJ and now the "benchmarks" that "prove" Linux is inferior to NT (as shown by an "independent" testing lab, no less), the Emperor's new clothes are revealing what Microsoft *really* means...
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
This whole situation is good news for the Linux community. Microsoft is forced to respond to what WE are doing. They're running scared.
Wouldn't it be easy for Microsoft to spin off this so-called company and pretend it's independent
I can verify that Mindcraft is not a Microsoft spinoff. They have been around for over 10 years. They are, however, essentially 'mercenaries'. I cannot say, however, that Microsoft hasn't purchased all or part of Mindcraft, although MS, being under scrutiny from the FTC (as well as the DOJ) would have to divulge any such investment. Their original purpose was doing POSIX compliance validation for OS vendors, however, they have also been doing benchmarking for a long time. At one time their primary customer was IBM (they provided benchmarking numbers for the RS/6000 in its early years).
I also fail to see how NT is an improvement over VMS.
Of course not, it isn't. NT is a half-baked re-implementation of MicroVMS with the bloated Windows GUI sitting on top of it. It isn't an improvement over even old VAX VMS, let alone recent OpenVMS.
VMS at least was a multi-user OS,
NT could be if it wasn't strangulated by the Windows GUI code which is inherently rooted in a single user philosophy.
Personally, I never even liked VMS. It was unecessarily crufty and complex and built from the large monolithic applications philosophy which I was never comfortable with.
I think NT has all the worst aspects of VMS without any of the redeeming qualities. If NT didn't come from Microsoft, it would be dying even quicker than VMS is.
And test results like these help explain why Windows NT Server 4.0 has so much support
Since you didn't state it in quite specific enough terms for the sarcastically challenged to grasp. Here is my read between Microsoft's lines:
The fact that we (Microsoft) have to pay a company like Mindcraft to rig test results shows why NT is losing the war as a web server platform to *nix and Apache.
All these benchmarks have done for me is question the integrity of both Microsoft and Mindcraft.
From now on I will take all claims made by Microsoft with a bigger grain of salt.
Microsoft will survive this debacle, but I'm sure that Mindcraft will take a serious blow. With their integrity questioned, who will take their tests seriously? I don't think that they'll be getting too many customers now.
Here is a suggestion for the Linux community: Someone should start a Linux hardware benchmarking and testing project. The role of this project would be to provide tips for tuning different configurations of computers for different purposes. Maybe they could get VAResearch to loan some hardware for the tests. The project team could challenge people at Microsoft to beat their results in head to head competition with impartial judges.
Actually, it was mentioned recently in some blurb about Linus' Comdex speech that his development machine is quad cpu (I don't recall if they mentioned what cpu in particular). But, in general, your point is well taken.
What is to prevent Mindcraft from using the advice they get in their write-up (we did this and this...), but not actually using it to tune the Linux server? Any study by this so called company should be suspect.
It is clear that this whole debacle is just another example of corporate propaganda. It makes you wonder just how many of the alleged "tests" that companies use to promote their products are truly independent tests, and how many are done by companies with the customer breathing down their necks.
As an aside, I remember reading about how the tests were done with about 140 machines running Windoze creating the load on the server. For a truly fair test, I would like to see the tests repeated with 140 Linux machines. Even better would be 140 assorted machines with completely unknown operating system configurations: Windoze95, Windoze98, Linux from various distributions, Macs and so forth. After all, isn't that what happens in the real world?
---
When you read anything on microsoft.com, remember:
microsoft.com is the official organ of the Microsoft Corporation politburo
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
It may happen sooner than some think.
I read in the business section of this morning's paper that a large investment firm (sorry, I forgot the name) is selling off all of its Microsoft stock, about $280 million worth. Apparently it figures that the stock is about peaked out, and there are better places to put the money.
-- Alastair
The problem is, that the server is only part of the cost. In order to test the server, you will also need 100-200 client machines + all the networking for these machines. This is where things get pricy. And to do a proper benchmark, asking people to SlashDot the machine is not an accurate measure of it's performance.
If Linus and Alan have a chance to help in redoing the tests (assuming the tests were done to their satisfaction), then I say go for it.
It seems that maybe there is some fear that Linux may not "blow away" NT like it has been talked about. This wouldn't surprise me, given the oversized hardware the test is being done on. It is already known that Linux has a lot of room for growth in that market.
It is not a bad thing to openly display the shortcomings of Linux. This will spark interest in overcoming these problems (and as the Salon article mentions, the ball is already rolling on this).
But then again, maybe Linux will "blow NT" out of the water. I for one would like to see the results.
I'm pretty sure Linus's box is now a Quad-Xeon. Certainly it is Quad-x86 Intel something.
This is almost funny:
"Microsoft was pleased but not surprised by Mindcraft's results concerning the excellent performance of Windows NT Server," said Ed Muth
Well *of course* they're not suprised! This phony crap is so transparent. Next time they should have NT edge out linux by an order of magnitude, not just double or triple, then they could say they were "pleasantly surprised".
Bunch of lying, cheating, conniving, manipulative turds. Makes me want to thow up.
"And test results like these help explain why Windows NT Server 4.0 has so much support."
Ah, they speak the truth...
--
--
Jason Eric Pierce
WindowsNT Server 4.0 faster, more scalable than Linux as a file and Web server, tests show
WindowsNT Server 4.0 significantly outperforms Linux in enterprise class systems
Redmond, WA--After these tests, WindowsNT Server 4.0 is still at the head of the class.
Microsoft SHOULD NOT be able to get away with such a cunning, blatent lie. There should be mass attention brought to this and expose these damn fools.
I want to see front page headlines in say the NY times like "Microsoft are cheats"
It's one thing to defend your OS, but its another to setup a scam like this.
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
Check out this account from a security consultant
= /news/022499-NT-Insecure.htm
http://www.ntsecurity.net/scripts/loader.asp?iD
Not sure how biased or fair it is but I thought it
was pretty interesting.
That is unless some mainstream mags like PC Week published a counter explaining it was bogus. I don't think they have...
Not gonna happen, they get too much M$ advertising money. Not to mention the fact they own a NETWORK. Linux coverage(+)in the mainstream PC press is still sparse, although you can see media bubbles rising from the riverbed to the mainstream (/. --> Network TV)
+&x
Microsoft has never made such serious mistakes in so short of a period of time with the rest of its competitors.
;)
you weren't paying attention to the doj trial, were you?
Why not put together the funds to pay Mindcraft? Commission them to do a real study, publicly announce it, make sure that the hardware is the same and get the best people in both camps to tune their machines. It could be a win for all parties. Except one :)
You may say that Mindcraft is biased, but if you are a paying customer, they have to live up to their promise and guarantees. Of course they could turn down the work, but then you would have the truest indication of their motives. Money should be the same color, no matter who's hands it is coming from.
.
However, if one simply did the Linux side, then pointed to the already published NT numbers for comparison, this may be doable.
Better yet, don't use the Mindcraft guys at all. Get a machine with the same hardware setup as Mindcraft published, throw Linux on it, tune it, and watch it scream. You or I can't afford the hardware, but dedicated Linux vendors can (several of who advertise here). Better yet, they have motive to refute the results. And they can invite anyone to the tests to examine the setup, in case people complain about impartiality...
--The basis of all love is respect
Sure, you can get optimal performance by compiling from source. You can also shoot yourself in the foot quite badly. I think Mindcraft was aiming for the right big toe.
--The basis of all love is respect
Don't worry. If/when they complete the "test" and publish it, naming Linus and Alan as "helpers", the first thing the news media is going to do is to call Linus and Alan to get a comment about it and thereby get the real story. In fact, having Linus and Alan involved in this actually helps us prove the point that MindCraft is not interested in obtaining decent Linux performance.
Mindcraft still have their report as the top link on their web site (www.mindcraft.com). This is AFTER MS admitted have publicly admitted it was a sham. I have sent 3 polite email so far asking them to do the decent thing - surprise! - no action, no reply from them.
Anyone else want to give them a nudge?
So I go and have a quick read of the MS press release cum article and decide I want to send them a polite note telling someone somewhere within the MS organization what I think about this little piece. When I choose the one button on the page which appears it might be a way to communicate, I get a pre-determined choice of options, not one of which has anything to do with replying to the article.
So, I look around a bit and click on a few items looking for a way to contact _anyone_ with a comment about the story and came up with the big zero: Nada, nothing, no way to say "Hi Microsoft, your story on the Mindcraft debacle has a few problems." This is typical MS in that MS doesn't want to hear from MS customers because MS is too busy trying to dictate what said customer should be doing and thinking -- and totally missing the boat all the while.
Justice will be served when MS turns around one day and finds they are missing many millions of customers. Count me in that rapidly growing group.
1 1/2 years of livin' and lovin' Linux!
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Microsoft obviously does not practice what they preach.
Just look at what their famed hotmail runs on -- netcraft.com speaks the truth!
Microsoft is going to pay dearly in the end. Anyone with some sense has seen through this FUD already. Alot of people out there are in bed with Microsoft and take it's lies for gospel. They won't believe anything works but Microsoft and they are doomed for a hell working in help desks for eternity.
Once the new study is run by Mindcraft with the full support of Linux users, Microsoft will be exposed for the fraud they are. Alot of the damage has been done already. Linux is still small and hopefully people realize that when they read Microsoft's news releases.
Madhatter --It's no wonderland out there.
If you read their performance page, it says that the various systems are at "peak performance"
So, by publishing this report as it was they are *certifing* that linux was running at peak performance
And, several of the changes they made, appeared to even reduce the out of box performance
So, are they *certifing* something that is obviously (and knowingly) false?
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Surprises me that it is Linus who is going to help. Did they only agree if it was Linus himself? If that's the case, do they also require BGate$ to be there?
:o)
Huh, got a much better idea, less do a benchmark and let Linus and BGate$ setup their own machine (same hardware of course).
THEN run some tests.
Breace.
Should've finished up the article. It's a shame that Mindcraft is refusing to do a proper test. Apparently the truth will hurt that they rig results. Pity.
Jack
Demona's Law - "User data expands to exceed available bandwidth." ("User data" being pr0n, mp3's, vob's,
I think that pretty much sums up the whole situation. And here Microsoft is trying to tout this result as something valid when the whole Linux community is up in arms over it, the press is outright calling the results a sham, and even Mindcraft is now wanting to redo the tests, most likely to get some respect back. I hate to say it (actually I LOVE to say it) but Microsoft is again making themselves look stupid by demeaning Linux. Hell, I just started running Linux full time after playing around with it for a year, and I have to say I've never been happier with speed, stability, and performance. Let real world examples show Linux is better than NT.
Jack
Demona's Law - "User data expands to exceed available bandwidth." ("User data" being pr0n, mp3's, vob's,
Think again. RAID5 is _much_ slower then
RAID1 on writes because it must recompute parity info on each write which requires several additional read and write operations. In some cases its read performance may be much slower then RAID1. For example many small files, opening file
requires modification of its access time which is a write operation. You can observer this behaviour
with INN or sendmail with large number of users.
RAID1 is actually faster then RAID0 or RAID5 for reads because it has twice the number of disks and with proper implementation _all_ disks are used to
fetch data.
Bullshit. Each disk added to RAID0/RAID1 speeds
up writes. For RAID5 it may not be the case
because each additional disk increases number
of operations to recalculate the parity.
Lunis will never have a chance to touch the machine in question. He won't be allowed within 50 feet. Imagine, here is linus setting up his server. He sees that SMP isn't working so great, so he hacks out a quick fix and patches the code. Presto, linux is kicking ass. Mindcraft whines, "Hey, that's not fair, you can't just change the kernel like that! That patch isn't in the official distribution!" And linus just grins and say, "It is now."
When when they undertsand the concept. The number one best super-duper cool reason to choose linux over NT isn't performance (not that it wouldn't beat the shit out of NT) but it's the code. You have all the info right there at your fingertips to crunch out your own perfect server, and you never have to wait for someone to come along and stick a bottle in your mouth.
The sad thing about this whole thing is that M$ will ALWAYS be believed. I know that most NT sysadmins think that M$ is the absolute truth, and if it comes from them, they better believe it. M$ trumpets that NT is better than linux, and those die-hard NT sysadmin's will believe it (and won't bother trying linux out themselves). Those same die-hards won't believe thousands and thousands of real-world, pro-linux testimony, but yet they'll believe one company... and a lying one at that. Crazy, isn't it?
Todd Gearhart
I was wrong in lumping together all NT sysadmins. Some of these guys (and gals too) are very good people how just have no choice as to which OS they use.
Todd Gearhart
Money + Americans = Stupidity.
Take note of our hypocritical society
___________________
Buy (I mean download) linux today!
___________________
Learn something!
---------------- Learn Something! www.esperanto.org
these midcraft people are at least nervy. They have the balls to say that they'll redo the tests... if linus helps them. I think that's great, only if they get bill to come and config the nt box.
the tiebreaker could be linus and bill mud wrestling for the title of software king!
d
...