Slashdot Mirror
Linux for the Enterprise @ CMP
Andrew Dvorak wrote to us with Network Computing's take on Linux. Good chronicle of why Linux is moving into the higher end markets, and the huge surge of support that has been seen in the last six months.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Wonderful to hear such groovy reviews...
One question - He mentions the lack of a 64bit journaling filesystem a couple of times. Even in a quote from "Mad Dog". When will XFS start being mentioned in these articles? I know it's not available yet, but couldn't they mention it?
He just says one is being developed. To some people, that's synonymous with non-existant.
But let's have a look at a few of the assumptions. They compare Netscape's server on Solaris with Apache on OS X. Has the world changed in some sudden way that it's not possible to compile Apache on Solaris any more? Or is it just obvious to everyone but me that, despite using two completely different web servers, the speed problems are all the OS's fault? And have we decided to drop all server applications but web serving? And even drop all web-serving applications that might require, say, eight CPUs and a couple of gig of RAM? And we're no longer worried about things like hardware failover?
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Well... all that has to happen for there to be a Kernel 2.4 is for Linux to declare it as such. Windows 2K is in Beta.. we know it exists.. all they have to do is release it.
Vapourware is more an intent to decieve... "Well we don't even have any ideas, but we'll announce it to stifle anyone else trying to do it."
You're arguing that simply because it doesn't have the same name that it is vapour... vapour might include Microsoft Word for Linux. There's nothing even resembling it.. they might announce it to make others rush or drop their plans, but they have no intention of doing it...
A promised peice of software or feature is not vapourware if it ever emerges.
Yes, it is.
6 245&mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/24/153
-cb
"Instead Linux currently serves as the Swiss Army knife of networking. In many ways, it's a stable version of what NT aspires to be." ;-).
What a great analogy. My company is slowly seeing this is true (with a little help from a certain employee
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Posted by ChristianC:
Why bother with Linux, NT or Solaris when OS X Server is 7 times faster than NT and 3 times faster than Solaris? See the Lab report at NewMedia
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Linux 2.4 (3.0?) is vaporware. 2.3 is real since it is downloadable.
Same with NT. W2k is vaporware. W2k-BetaX is real since it is downloadable.
The thing to keep in mind is that any individual feature-disparity can be vaporware, too. For instance, a journaling filesystem for Linux is vaporware for any kernel version number. Same with a lot of the promised features of W2k.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Unless the product is actually on the shelf, it is vaporware.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
And over the past 12 months, you've witnessed Apple, Computer Associates, Compaq, Corel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Informix, Intel, Lotus, NAI, Netscape, Novell, Oracle, SAP and Sybase launch support for what appears to be the world's fastest-growing OS.
Of course, Apple's involvement with Linux (MkLinux) goes back years, not months. The author seems to be confusing Darwin with Linux...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
"A promised peice of software or feature is not vapourware if it ever emerges."
A promised piece of software is vaporware UNTIL it emerges since there's no way to predict if it ever will emerge until it does.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
I would have loved to read this article, if it had not made UNIX netscape explode every time I went to the page. How ironic.
The report only shows (claims?) that Mac OS X running Apache is faster than Solaris running Netscape Enterprise or NT running IIS.
I would suggest that this test shows nothing more than the relative speeds of Apache, IIS and Netscape Enterprise. If one wanted relevant speed comparisons for the OS's, one would most certainly hold the server as a control variable - that is to say that each of the machines would be running Apache.
Further, the Solaris test is an example of very poor science - a dual 200MHz SPARC is not necessarily comparable to a PII 400 MHz Intel or G3. You can't just multiply processor speed by number of processors.
Even worse, the "report" makes no mention whatsoever of configuration of the servers, the setup of the client machines, or any other variables that one would expect any HONEST test would control.
The only thing made clear in the test "report" is that this test says NOTHING about Linux's performance.
This is an excellent example of informed journalism.
Very well written, researched and presented.
Makes me shiver when I think of what's going to be available for Linux in 4 years.
Let's hear it for momentum. Keep it up, all.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Network computing has been pretty fair in their coverage of higher-end computing. The fact that they recognize the value of Open Source and that it involves a process, not just Linux is great stuff to see go mainstream. Don't forget to check out the excellent perl article later in the issue. Nice easy example of Perl flexibility. Program starts simple and gets complex yet really does not change much in size....
Blogging because I can...
Where can I get the drivers for the warp engines and teleporters?
Otherwise, a well-written article. Too bad we couldn't see the numbers on the SMB tests - I suppose you have to have permission from Microsoft in order to do that :-(.
-- ultra1
I like how they present a benchmark for the suits, without appearing to take it very seriously at all:
In our testing of Samba, we used a Pentium II-based HP NetServer LPr and pitted Microsoft NT Server Enterprise Edition against Red Hat Linux v5.2 running Samba 2.0.3. Unlike the controversial Microsoft-funded studies released by Mindcraft, we discovered only negligible performance differences between the two for average workloads. Our tests showed that, depending on the degree of tuning performed on each installation, either system could be made to surpass the other slightly in terms of file-sharing performance. But examining the cost difference between the two licenses brings this testing into an entirely new light.
ArcServe also has a Linux client, though it's not well publisized and eeking it out of CAIs lousy tech-support is not easy. But it's there. The packages are ua0042.tar and the upgrade ua0076.tar. You'll have to call tech support to get FTP site access.
Why bring up Linux, when it wasn't even part of the test (c'mon, why troll why)?
Why are Macheads the most technically illiterate piles of dog feces I've ever had the displeasure to deal with? (heh, my turn to troll now)
Where are the complete system specs? Where are the cost figures for the tested systems? Where's the science???
-- ultra1
Overall a excellent article, with one minor exception.
The author seems to equate Beowulfs with high availability clusters. Beowulf clusters are for high computational processing, not for high availability processes.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)