Slashdot Mirror
NT vs. Linux - Mindcraft Vindicates Itself
MauricioAP writes "the new benchmarks from mindcraft, or the NT vs. linux, aren't good for Linux, especially for RH guys.
Check this out." Reliability and "bang per $$" aren't addressed by this test or the results might have been quite different. But within the limited parameters, which may or may not accurately reflect real-world conditions, it looks like Mindcraft has been quite fair. (Please read carefully before judging.)
Ok, at the risk of opening myself to flames, I would say that the tests (for once) look valid. Doesn't look good for Linux, and we all know Microsoft is gonna have a blast in the PR dept.
I think it is important to note though that in MS you have NT 4 to pay for, then IIS, and all the rest. So Linux certainly is cheaper, and it's uptime is better. And Linux has better SMP support. Also add in tech support (assuming you outsource for both NT and Linux) and Linux still kinda-sorta comes out on top.
IMHO (strapping on the asbestos) they both have their uses. Like it or not, there are some things that NT is simply better for. And ditto for Linux too. I personally believe Linux is a better server platform despite the Mindcraft tests because of uptime and efficiency.
Just my random unorganized thoughts.
These benchmarks were released on the day of Gates' Comdex Keynote? Coincidence?
Bah, who am I trying to fool?
I couldn't care less how Linux performs compared to NT, or any other OS. The simple fact of the matter is, I get far more work done in Linux than in Windows. I haven't tried any BSD's yet, purely through lack of time, but I would guess that the same rules would apply. For a programmer/sysadmin such as myself, the benefits of a Unix-like environment just beats the pants off NT. There's no way I'd use NT to do what I have to do. I'd go insane within two weeks...
They wrote:
:(, like they don't know 2.3 is devel ....
"Why didn't Red Hat use a Linux 2.3 kernel in Phase 3?
They told us that it was too unstable for them to be sure of getting it working in the short time we had to run the Open Benchmark
"
Yeah right
The guy who wrote the FAQ really could go into politics someday... He's go at bending the truth.
Where I work we have 4 kinds of computers
hpux
nt
solaris
linux
hpux sucks. Those computers sit there and suck and crash all day. People are begging others to take them
nt. these make good workstations and ok file servers. they don't suck as bad as the hpux's and can actually do some work
solaris. these are the big babies. they sit there and work all day. these guys do the big shit. webservers firewalls and other bigshit
linux. these sit around similar to the solaris and do everything. weather they are work stations or dhcp or file servers. when you don't need anything to high end.
bottom line is that you don't put nt on a 4way smp box. you put solaris on that.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Note the date at the top of the referenced page - June 30, 99. (Which explains why they are using old builds of Linux and old NT service packs.)
-Blake (who didn't realize the Linux crowd hadn't already looked at this updated benchmark
Note, however, that the tested kernel (2.2.6) is one prior to the single-threaded-TCP fix. I would like to see these tests done with a more recent kernel.
Again, we must concede that on unrealistically high loads, in an unrealistic test scenario, a professionally tuned very-high-end PC with 4 CPU will outperform an older Linux kernel.
However (sorry Microsoft), that doesn't matter to me. What is also important is reliability, maintainability, cost, support, standards-compliance, and a host of other things. For me, Linux still beats NT when all these factors are considered. Also, if I wanted a very high-end SMP box for web serving, I'd probably choose Solaris anyway. Microsoft, you're barking up the wrong tree. Let's see this test repeated, but compare NT with a Sun UE450 next time.
--
--
The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
I think you're mistaken.
First, this report is quite good IMO, there are many signs which show this test is more fair than the former one.
OTOH, the apologies would have been in order just for the aggressive tone of some people independ of this test.
All in all I would say perhaps some people in the "linux community" (I hate this wording) have learned something, but mindcraft learned as much or more. This fairer and more exact test shows this, in the FAQ they even admit they had done configuration mistakes with linux in the first test.
Mindcraft:
The major performance problems are with the TCP stack, which is single threaded in the 2.2.x Linux kernels, and with large-grained kernel locks that degrade multiprocessor performance. The Linux community is addressing these performance problems and others in their 2.3.x kernel series.
Well, I'm glad that they recognise that work is being done on this. It is very much the case that Linux does have SMP scalability problems, and I think we all knew that prior to this report.
Regardless, I still stand by the old motto, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, run Linux, run BSD, run NT, do what you will, but be sure to be happy, with what you run. I would like to see how NT fares against Linux & BSD in the real world, how about this test:
The test will last for one year.
The machines will be under constant varying Web & File serving Load.
The NT box will also run a 16-bit application.
I think we all know what's going to happen over time here...
You can't test NT performance over 15minutes of file/web-serving, NT may have only leaked 15Mbs of the available 1Gb in that time.
OK, I don't know whether they tested for 15minutes or not, but I did look and cannot find anything regarding the duration of the tests. Can someone please comment on this?
Everything looks fine to me too. All I can say is that I am disappointed at Linux's performance. Still won't stop me using it though.
However, I do have a question that maybe someone here could answer - if in testing NT proves to be faster than Linux, why then in the real world does Linux always feel faster? Web sites that run on Linux/Apache always seems more efficient and seem to load faster than ones on NT/IIS, but the tests here show otherwise!
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the tests are fixed. If there were Redhat Engineers there doing the tuning (and I'm sure if they weren't really there we would have heard about it), I certainly can't say that the tests were fixed. But the tests certainly don't seem to reflect what I seem to witness in the real world? Maybe, just coincindently, the NT/IIS servers that I connect to happen to have lower bandwitdh than those with Linux...!
Anyway, here is an example:
NT/IIS: http://www.dvdexpress.com
- this is one of the site where they have multiple servers to handle the load. I think they go from www1 to www9, maybe higher. And it always seems slow...
Linux/Apache: http://slashdot.org
- this, AFAIK, runs on 1 web server (I think the config is 1 web server, and 1 oracle server). Correct me if I'm wrong. However, it definately isn't 9 or 10 webservers. And response time is always good.
Granted, the back end on both is completely different - DVDExpress runs on SQLServer, and slashdot on Oracle. But there is still a noticeable difference.
Anyone care to comment on this? Why does the real world never reflect 'scientific' testing?
T.
Tests for 1 processor systems with NT clients are to conspicously missing. This, conincidentally, is where Linux should beat NT.
Mindcraft hasn't made up their results, but there's no need to when you select your benchmarks carefully.
We've got a K6-233 setup with NT server and a 386-40 setup with linux as an internet gateway. I chose NT for the server mainly because linux doesn't have any support for netbeui. With NT I can turn off netbios over tcp/ip and use netbeui for the local file sharing. This way if someone were ever to actually break into our gateway from the outside, they wouldn't be able to get to any of our business information. Also one of the programs we use is dos based and has a server component. I don't have the time to play around with trying to get dosemu to run stably with networking support just for the thrill of running linux on the server. NT works and does what we need it to without any real drawbacks. Unlike many of my friends I'm not a linux or open source zealot. I prefer linux over any other operating system, but I'm not foolish enough to think its the best in every way and in ever situation. If it were NT wouldn't even be on the map. I can't comment on whether NT is faster on our fileserver than linux would be, but I can say with certainty that linux is faster on the 386-40 than NT would be, especially since its running off 8 megs of ram. Not exactly a supercomputer but it does its job of ip masquerading fast enough to deal with our 56k connection in real time which is all you can ask of any computer doing that job.
I like NT to tell the truth. As a simple fileserver it does a good job in my experience. But it has flaws in its stability and security. I wouldn't use it someplace where you had to really rely on it. I'd use something else, maybe linux, maybe not. I would of course depend on the task and which tool was the best solution.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Why the hell are we discussing a benchmark ran on a hardware config designed especially for NT:
1. MindCraft once again used a quad ether (but skipped anouncing it) and the infamous "EtherStripping" break your switch stuff.
2. Mindcraft once again used the Dell machine which has a RAID running better under NT than under Linux
The benchmark is faulty by design:
1. If you want these speeds you use a Gig Ether on the server in full duplex mode not a questionable technique that actually breaks lots of real networks.
2. If you want real OS becnhmarking you use an architecture that is equivalently supported by bothe OSes.
Overall:
I have tested Linux with GigE (it can almost pull physical speed on machines much cheaper than the Mindcraft Dell monster) and NT has been officially tested by most GigE manufacturers. The results used to be available at the packetengines site butit looks like they were dropped when moving the site to alcatel. Anybody a link please? I would not quote them so nobody blames me for flamebaiting...
It will be rather interesting if someone finally does this benchmark on a sanely designed network (no etherstripping BS) and with proper hardware.
To conclude I expected better from RH than accepting a doomed bench (on hardware and in a network setup where they cannot win).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
". Download a linux dist, get a geek who lives for it, and understands it. "
Sadly, this is _not_ a recipe for success. A geek who knows all the command flags for ls by heart and prides himself on being up to date with _all_ the latest bind vulnerabilities is not your ideal sysadmin. You need someone who sees the wood as well as the trees, and administrator who can think strategically as well as perform competant operational tasks.
In this light, you realise that a good sysadmin is not someone who understands an OS thoroughly. It is someone who understands the aims of you IT systems thoroughly, and knows how to implement those aims properly. There's a world of difference.
That said, yes, I think the TCO of *nix is generally lower once you are talking about large installations and Enterprises. For smaller organisations I'm not at all sure that is true. A 20 person company with a need for a file and print server is perfectly suited to an NT box.
-----
Some people may flame me saying, "You don't care anymore because Linux is losing." Wrong answer.
Here's why: I LIKE LINUX
I genuinely like it. Yeah, so these benchmarks say it is not as fast or as "good." What is good anyway? Good to me is: reliability, configurability, usability, extensibility, scalibility, inexpensiveness, fun, etc. Linux shines in all of these areas and more. Yes, that's right, I said Linux is FUN. Linux is plainly more fun to use. I don't care what any some benchmarks say. We all know that benchmarks are unrealistic. They don't test "real world" conditions and situations. I think we should use their criticisms (only if valid, of course) to help Linux be a better operating system, not to beat some other OS.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
I'm sorry, but that post is just so wrong it is laughable. If you had found some site that ran NT and was faster than Slashdot (not hard to do) you would be flamed out of existance.
Where to start?
Slashdot does use multiple webserver - it caches static pages, and
Slashdot does not use Oracle it uses MySQL. Big difference in websites.
"The response time is always good" ????? Not from where I am (Australia) it isn't. Subjectivly, dvdexpress seemed faster to me. Anyway, what does that prove? You are closer to Slashdot than dvdexpress? Slashdot has more bandwidth?
Dvd is graphic intensive, and takes longer to render in Netscape, too.
You can't compare two totally dissimilar sites, on totally different hardware.
I bet I can find apache sites that seem slower than NT/IIS sites. EG: www.Apache.org always seems very slow to me. What does that prove? NOTHING!!!!
Look, I want Linux to be faster than NT as much as anyone, but we can't even be seen trying to spread FUD like MS does. Imagine if MS stuck that up at Comdex as by "a Linux Hacker, posting on the Linux nerd site slashdot.org".
People, please think for a moment before you post, and before you moderate comments like that up. Ask yourself this:
Reader of Slashdot don't need to see arguments for Linux like this, we need to see the opposing view, so we can learn what we need to improve.
Damn.. I just know this will kill my karma, but that is crazy!
--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com
I am surprised so many people haven't realised there is no such thing as a non-biased benchmark, and that, shock, horror, Linux is perfect (yet).
Benchmarks must reduce the scope of tests and make assumptions, which are not always true, so as to be possible. They also need to be done at a point in time, and not wait 'for the next version, which is so much better'. Doug Ledford of RedHat was there for the tests and has his spin on the tests, where he talks about the difficulty of getting a meaningful benchmark. The Tranaction Processing Council are continually revising their benchmarks to remain meaningful. The big guns, IBM, Sun, HP, Oracle, Sybase, Compaq and Microsoft all use different TPC benchmarks to try and gain ammunition for sales staff. At some point Linux people will need to do the same.
The Mindcraft benchmarks look to be as fair as any I've seen. The reaction to the benchmarks is far more informative than the results themselves.
Linux can still be improved, it isn't as strong as other operating systems in some areas. The fact there is development occuring proves this point.
If you don't like the results, find a benchmark and configuration that gets the results you do like! Where there is a real deficiency lend a hand and be part of the solution.
First of all, as far as I know almost every major company has a habit of cheating in benchmark tests. For example video card drivers detect that a test is being run and enable code that skips most of the drawing primitives. This is easy to do in code that is not open source since it would take a major effort to reverse engineer the device drivers. It might be possible that NT has a feature that detects different kinds of tests and optimizes its performance accordingly (if you are for example testing throughput you would trade throughput for latency times). While this is not cheating in usual sense I think that this would be quite useless in normal mixed load situations.
The second thing is that Microsoft is quite a large company. If it wants to outperform Linux then all it needs to do is install Linux, tune it to its limits and then analyze its performance and find out weak points. Then it makes the same thing with NT. After that it just puts hundred well paint workers to make NT faster than Linux. This is made easier by the fact that if Linux works faster than NT they can just look at sources and figure out what Linux is doing better than NT. Also, it is possible that Microsoft would look at the weak points in Linux and would publish only those benchmarks where Linux performs significantly worser than NT. Anybody who does those same benchmarks would get similar results and the original benchmarks would be considered objective.
Third thing is that those benchmarks might only test peak performance - performance under high load. It is also possible that the structure of the load is untypical. This is true with most benchmarks; they rarely test systems under realistic conditions. Since I have not looked at those benchmark programs I do not know if this is the case. Anyway, peak performance is important if you want to identify bottlenecks and see what are the limits of programs. Peak performance does not tell how programs work under normal every day use.
Last thing is that I think those benchmarks are already outdated. What I would be more interested would be performance of cutting edge Linux system against similar NT system.
As a conclusion I again state that I think those benchmarks look valid. It seems that Linux kernel (and possibly also Apache) still has bottlenecks in its performance. I'm not sure if those have been fixed since this benchmark. However, I think that this benchmark should be thought of as a challenge to improve the performance of Linux. I actually think that Linux did quite well; performance differences are not THAT large when you take into account my comments above.
Though the PCWeek tests favour NT (for reasons well covered elsewhere), they do not do so by the ludicrous margin the original tests gave, and the Linux's community's cries of "foul" were entirely just and accurate: these tests show that Mindcraft did indeed load the die.
Furthermore, Weiner has never managed to justify the claim that he had asked for help in "several Linux discussion groups" when setting up the first test: searches show that he only posted *one* article, and that was met with requests for clarification that was never forthcoming. So as it stands we're quite justified in believing that Weiner is a flat-out liar on top of his other sins. That's not vindication.
--
Xenu loves you!
The real problem with the Mindcraft benchmark has nothing to do with most of what they cited: the graphs are painfully clear that the limited resource is network bandwidth. That's why it's so funny when they say "We'd never test a server that's resource-limited. What's the point?" That's what I'd ask them now.
Note that they test with one and with four processors, but do not test with one or two ethernet cards. In fact, they never mention the complete hardware configuration of the machine, so we just have to assume they used the same f*cked-up four ethernet card configuration.
There were actually benchmarks put out by c't explaining this, with graphs, and real tasks. Linux performance generally did much better until that second ethernet card was added. I'll believe them, that it's a software limitation in the TCP stack, but I'll also believe that they were exploiting a known problem in the Linux kernel--that only happens under these strange conditions--to their ends. Until they show some benchmarks with the ethernet cards mentioned as a factor.
NT vs. Linux Server Benchmarks: informative and interesting, but most of all truthful, with a link to the c't article I mentioned, and many other more realistic benchmarks.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I can't believe anyone would make this assertion. While I agree completely with the other half of your statement, that a good sysadmin must understand the aims of yout IT systems and know how to implement them properly, I would say that thoroughly understanding an OS is a vital prerequsite for that second clause.
Anyone who has worked with an operating system, a programming language, heck, a make and model of car, knows that there are essentially four levels of competence. First, complete incompetence. You have no knowledge, you try things and you screw things up. Second, basic competence. You have some knowledge. You successfully carry out basic tasks. You use the system without damage, but there are vast areas about which you know nothing. Third, competence. At this level you know your way around. You know how things work. You know what all the parts do. Fourth, high competence (guru). You not only know how things work, you know why. You develop a holistic sense of the system/language/automobile. You can imagine how things work. You can be presented with an unfamiliar situation and you can figure out what to do about it.
Most people with whom I have worked in IT (and I've been working professionally as either a system admin or a programmer/analyst for over 12 years now) are at what I would call level 3, and a fair number are at level 4. Thorough knowledge of a system is required to be at level 4.
The notion that one does not require deep knowledge of systems to be a systems administrator is tenable only in a system with nothing ever happens that is outside the training materials. No such system exists.
If you are arguing that deep knowledge of a system is not required to be a sysadmin, then I sure don't want to work at your company. If, OTOH, you are arguing that deep knowledge of a system is not in itself sufficient to be a good sysadmin, well, then I've been wasting your time and I apologize, because I agree with that...
The point the first poster was making, I think, is that by using a 4-way box, and crowing about their advantage on ludicrously high server loads, MS is aiming at that market. That is, once you step into the realm of 4 processor machines, testing NT vs. Linux is just silly, because who in their right mind would use either one for such hardware? It's like saying that my Cessna is a better stealth fighter than your Piper Cub, and ignoring the F-111 because "we're not competing in that market."
The fact remains that this test only proves that for applications where you should have been using a high-end OS (and, apparently, where stability doesn't matter), NT can pump more bits down the pipe for as long as it manages to remain up. As for "real world scenario," this test sure ain't. I'm a little disappointed that RedHat actually sent people to compete in this test, since we all knew what it would show anyway. They should've just pointed out that the test was silly and they have more important things to do. Corporate pride and all that, I guess...
----
Morning gray ignites a twisted mass of colors shapes and sounds
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
What really matters is what can an OS do for the user -- specifically in this instance where the OS is a server. IS people need to be comfortable with their environment and if it works, use it. Especially when you have to have cpmpatibility
I've heard a lot of you say "both OSs have their strengths and weaknesses. Both can do a job and do it well." This is the paramount truth. BOTH do have their strengths and weaknesses.
The most interesting thing I've seend so far from Mindcrafts latest tests were (and I maybe reading the phase 1/2 configureation wrong) is that all the client machines were Windows OS machines.
Duh Huh. Do you suppose they might work better? I certainly do. Lets try this on a homogenous system (though thats impractical unless they have ported NetBench and WebBench to Linux/Unix).
The truth is: Yes Linux needs some work. Yes Mindcraft used a 2.2.6 Kernel. Yes you would expect that MS would work better with MS. Yes 95% of the personal computer market is MS. Yes NT and Linux have their strengths and weaknesses.
But the bottom line is what do you as an IS person (and I say this because a majority of us Linux users are IS people) want out of a server/OS?
Bang for the buck? Good argument. Holds some water. Reliability? Better argument. Holds more water. Potential? Best argument of all. A wellspring.
If you must use NT for a purpose, use NT. Its not all that bad. It works well in its environment and by nature its going to work best with other MS products.
Otherwise, get Linux. Use Linux. Make Linux better. Forget Benchmarks. Forget this silly NT Vs Linux crap. Its all a PR ploy that MS has ccoked up to hit us Linux (AND ALL OTHER OPEN SOURCE OSs) below the belt. They can't beat us in the marketplace, so they have to get us from somewhere. And that somewhere is in our confidence.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
This is rather old news. Blah blah yes NT's faster at the moment when using multiple network cards in a single system. The kernel developers know that NT's threaded TCP/IP stack is making the difference here and they're implementing that in the next kernel. Any speed advantages NT has at the moment will be gone well before Windows 2000 comes out.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What I mean by this is really pretty simple. In a Windows Operating Environment, people are encouraged to use very different toolsets than they are in a Linux operating environment. Instead of perl, apache, and MySQL, they tend to use ASP, IIS, and Access/Jet through ODBC.
ODBC alone is a performance and stability nightmare, especially if it is not setup perfectly. ASP is a piece of junk. IIS is (I guess) okay. In Linux, perl is (arguably) pretty good, so long as you use mod_perl, MySQL is the fastest thing under the sun for those tasks it can handle, and apache is (like IIS) pretty good if not designed for speed.
We aren't comparing operating systems, we are comparing operating environments (or at least we should be). And testing static pages only totally discounts the afects of operating environment.
Another thing to look at is "culture". Linux users tend to like carefully crafted point solutions -- that's why we're Linux users. NT users just want to get it done, stability be damned -- that's why they're NT users. I think that this difference has a lot to do with Linux reputation for speed and stability. Even a novice sysadmin, exposed to the Linux community, starts to soak up the ethos of the community. Even more important, the support (including full source code) is in place to allow him to do as well as he would like. An NT user soaks up the "get it done, screw stability, hardware is cheap" ethos of the NT community. And the resources to do it right are often /not/ easily available.
Anyway, the point is that we are /not/ just comparing kernels. If we were, then we'd all probably be running some custom TCP stack on embedded hardware.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I am just wondering, with all the great things I've heard (and know) about linux...why would this happen? Is it simply a matter or SMP being immature? Is asynchronous IO not yet fully implemented. I'd have to say, when MS ignorantly claims that linux is based on "decades old technology", these two must be a thorn in its side. Sure, most linuxvolk probably never encounter this cieling...but is it being worked on by somebody somewhere? We can't just say every time somebody does a benchmark "Oh, well, you forgot to use the latest kernel that just came out an hour ago, along with X number of requisite patches".
(I'm not trying to be a troll...just wondering)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Firstly, PerlScript-ASP will flunk any performance test you give it right now because it's practically at the fork() level of functionality (new perl interpreter per request). Trust me on this one.
For some more interesting breakdowns of different scripting model overheads see Hello World Benchmarks. The aim of those test is not about real world applications, but about the overhead of starting the interpreter. Basically, mod_perl, PHP4 and ASP/VBScript all come out around the same level performance-wise. However it's worth bearing in mind that mod_perl is a _lot_ more than just a CGI scripting API - it's access to the entire Apache server architecture - something the other engines just don't give you.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
So what if NT can throw out static pages faster? I'm sticking with UNIXish systems because when I use them, I know I've got more power at my fingertips than NT's pop-up happy dungeon could ever give me. I can change the code on most systems... I can craft my own tools by combining existing ones... and I can find the answers to my questions on the Web rather than having to pay "per-incident" fees.
On top of it all, if anything does go wrong, 99.44% of the time I can fix it without standing in front of the server. NT doesn't have that capability. If a service needs to be upgraded I can do it without affecting anything else on the box.
UNIX is power because you can insert yourself at virtually any step along the way of any process. You want to do anything in NT, you must do it with whatever APIs MS thinks you need, or pay them to make more.
I'll stick with the power, thank you.
Or else you'd never get more than a 50% improvement on the same hardware. Never heard of an NT box that served pages fast in the real world.
NT was designed to do this sort of thing - keyword designed. :P.
/tmp/X11-unix lock files? ERK. :P, the registry is a good thing. Yes when win95 came out there were registry problems but I haven't had any problems since 1996. It's a great idea, it's like having a database to store all your settings.
Linus didn't design Linux for the kind of work which NT is excelling at in these benchmarks.
When Dave Cutler sat down and designed NT, this was the kind of things they were trying to do, fine grain kernel locks, high performance and scalability. The market place has unfortunately seen many of the good things about NT get forgotten (portability for example), but NT still stands there with the ability to scale MUCH MUCH better than Linux can at the present.
Yes you may feel like going out and burning a few MS cds or whatever, but at the end of the day it's true. Improvements ofcourse are being made to linux, and linux may catch up.
However, I'm actually a bit worried about the fundamental design of Linux itself - I'm not saying it's totally 30 year old technology - far from it - but having experience with linux and NT for quite a number of years now, to me, NT seems like it is better designed and had good goals.
I won't bother to argue about whether they were met or not here tho
Some fiddly things about Linux/Unix I don't like are:
-Threading. According to IBM, Linux native threads are mapped processes!??! which makes their JDK rather slow compared to NT.
-Mutexes/Semaphores/CriticalSections etc - why doesn't Linux use them? I mean for god sakes what the hell are linux applications writing *.pid files around for? And what about
-Componentisation - it's happening slowly but only in the past few months (maybe a year). I'm still waiting to see the Unix APIs wrapped up.
-Registry. I've said it before and I'll say it again
Now I don't really care whether the registry is one huge file or several files (user and system) like in NT, but I just want some STANDARD APIs for reading writing settings - fast APIs.
Ofcourse the registry has other uses too, like storing COM/CORBA UUIDs etc etc etc.
Being a database it'll definitely be faster than parsing text files, and even better it's much easier to programatically add/remove/change settings (trying to parse text files to do that sort of thing sucks).
Anyway, it seems everytime something about Linux comes up the response is "someone is working on it". When it comes up again the answer is the same, and then everyone ignores the strengths that NT does have because Linux will have it cause "someone is working on it".
Just give NT, MS and Dave credit, and move on.
Linux is not the solution to everything. It's a great free small-medium server & emerging desktop OS. Let's leave it at that for the next year or so.
I have no doubt that the numbers given are correct. The question is are the benchmark's constraints realistic.
For example, I can benchmark my speed on foot vs. a car. We can do that on the drag strip for 1/4 mile, New York city at rush hour, or on a test track in a 10 foot race. I will loose badly in the first test, the second is a coin toss, but I will certainly win the third, no matter which car you choose!
I am also reminded of another 'benchmark', a Chevy Nova ([poorly] modified street racer) vs. a beat up Honda. The Honda won because the Chevy boiled over.
So, yes, I believe that benchmark, but I don't think it means what MS would like to think it means.
The numbers were better when the test was fairer. A still fairer (ie more realistic) test would be even further in our favour. That they untied the weight around *one* of our ankles does not make it a fair race.
Benchmarks run by those without an axe to grind (eg c't) consistently come out in Linux's favour. A lot of design work went into finding ones that would point the other way: for example, using four 100Mbit cards rather than one gigabit card. That the actual anti-tweaks for Linux were taken out doesn't mean the anti-Linux design wasn't still there.
That's why everyone remembers these benchmarks over all the other Linux vs. NT benchmarks. It wasn't because they were particularly well done: they are famous and remarkable because they're the only ones that NT doesn't lose like a dog.
--
Xenu loves you!
There may be people out there that see Linux as nothing but ani-Windows. They want to see Linux beat windows into the ground. These people really fail to see the strengths of Linux itself.
It is fun. Yup, that's right. I enjoy running it.
I don't preach Linux to people because it is the fastest horse in town, but because I enjoy it, and I think likeminded people will too. And almost without fail, they agree. Out of all of the people who I've helped transition, I've only lost one of them back to Windows land. You do have to hold their hand in the beginning, esp if they aren't good with *nix in general, but after a short amount of time, they become comfortable and enjoy running it.
Because it is just fun.
This sig is false.
It's simply that Linux is good enough if you're not feeding several T1 circuits to a single server. Particularly if you know what "BSOD " means.
In _The Psychology of Computer Programming_(*), Gerald Weinberg wrote a story about a programmer who was flown to Detroit to help debug a program that was in trouble. The programmer worked with the team of programmers who had developed the program, and after several days he concluded that the situation was hopeless.
;)
On the flight home, he mulled over the last few days and realized the true problem. By the end of the flight, he had outlined the necessary code. He tested it for several days and was about to return to Detroit when he got a telegram saying the project had been cancelled because the program was impossible to write. He headed back to Detroit anyway and convinced the executives that the project could be completed.
He then had to convince the project's original programmers. They listened to his presentation, and when he'd finished, the creator of the old system asked,
"And how long does your program take?"
"That varies, but about ten seconds per input."
"Aha! But my program takes only one second per input." The veteran leaned back, satisfied that he'd stumped the upstart programmer. The other programmers seemed to agree, but the new programmer wasn't intimidated.
"Yes, but your program doesn't work. If mine doesn't have to work, I can make it run instantly and take up no memory. "
Moral of the story: correctness first, then speed.
How fast would NT be if they fixed it?
Saying that the TCP/IP stack is ``single threaded'' is completely misleading. The TCP/IP stack in Linux isn't threaded at all. It is not a process. It is just a bunch of code operating on data that is shared among processes/threads and interrupt service routines. Any process in the system may enter the TCP/IP code, as may any interrupt on any processor. The Mindcraft cluelessness about how the kernel works takes even more away from what little credibility they have left.
To say that the Linux stack is single-threaded implies that it has an internal thread which does all the work. Obviously, this is far from the case.
*note* slashdot is obviously overworked, this test was posted 4 months ago, only differnce is it was reformated. *sigh* This is OLD news.. These benchmarks exploited a flaw in the 2.2 kernel's IP stack. Everytime you add another network card you effectivly cut the performence in half. This was caused by the fact that 2.2.x locked the "whole" IP stack everytime one of the "other" network cards were in use. *duh* this is why mindcraft used 4 network cards instead of 1 100Mbit network card. If they needed more bandwidth they should of used a Gigabit network adaptor.
-- You can be a geeklord too
These benchmarks were released on the day of Gates' Comdex Keynote? Coincidence?
Everything we learned from the antitrust findings of fact would suggest that it's not coincidence. I therefore have to hand it to Microsoft, not for winning yet another questionable benchmark contest, but for maximizing the spin benefits thus obtained. That is true art.
This is an example of a Microsoft "spin" attack. There will be more to come - the battle has just begun. Let's admit it, Microsoft won this round in the spin battle - mainly because we weren't fighting, and took a punch below the belt. Referee - what referee? OK, so we learned something about the rules of the game.
Let's do two things:
1) Make Linux better so we win these high-end SMP contests as well. I don't know about you, but I'm treating myself to a 2-processor machine this Christmas, and I want it to kick ass running Linux. With 100,000's of geeks likely doing the same time, we can expect 2000 to be the breakthrough year for geek-SMP. We also need better file I/O. Not that the existing I/O isn't damm good, but it has to be the best, right? (Personally I'm putting my money where my mouth is - as a developer, I can make a difference and thanks, MS for getting me steamed enough to jump in.)
2) Master the PR game. Microsoft can, and will hurt us with PR. Some may say "so what, who cares what Microsoft says, it's how good Linux is that matters" and there's a lot of truth to that. Nonetheless, why don't we cover all the bases? We need an open-source think tank cum swat team whose only purpose is to anticipate, forestall and counter the PR moves that Microsoft makes. We have the collective intelligence to play that game well, and hey, it's a fun game when you win.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
*note* slashdot is obviously overworked, this test was posted 4 months ago, only differnce is it was reformated. *sigh* This is OLD news.. These benchmarks exploited a flaw in the 2.2 kernel's IP stack. Everytime you add another network card you effectivly cut the performence in half. This was caused by the fact that 2.2.x locked the *whole* IP stack everytime one of the "other" network cards were in use. *duh* this is why mindcraft used 4 network cards instead of 1 100Mbit network card. If they needed more bandwidth they should of used a Gigabit network adaptor. p.s. Run the exact same tests with 1 nic card and or wait for 2.4 to be released and you will see how f*cked these tests were.
-- You can be a geeklord too
You know... NT isn't my favorite OS by any means, but I've got two NT servers in my comms room that have NOT been rebooted in one year for any reasons other than to update the Service Pack, which I think only happened twice and was completely voluntary. Your server must be rebooted everyday? Hmmmm... maybe you're just a terrible sysadmin, or... whatever you do.
- -------------
There seems to be a lot more NT bashing than would be expected from people who claim to use Linux exclusively. I don't use Linux that much, so I won't make any comments about it, but I do know that NT does what I need it to do. It may not be very elegant, but only BeOS has any bragging rights in that department anyway.
I think that most Linux enthusiasts really take pride in knowing as much as there is to know about making sure Linux is stable. Well, NT seems to me to be just as stable, there just seems to be fewer people who actually know how to run it properly. I'm not pushing for Microsoft, I just think we're all getting a little hotter under the collar than is necessary. Personally, I prefer Apple products, and consider myself part of the Mac faithful. And I know and accept all of the shortcomings of the OS, just as Mindcraft has demonstrated some areas that can be improved with Linux. But, just because I know that there are problems with the MacOS doesn't mean I'm going to give it up.
--------------------------------------------
It's called WOW (Windows On Windows). All Win16 apps run in the same address space (WOWEXEC) because many Win16 apps were designed to share data between processes. IPC was super-easy on Win16 because there is no boundary between processes. A Win16 app can simply send a pointer address (maybe via a Windows message) to another app. The other Win16 app can simply deference the pointer. cheap IPC.
cpeterso
To a certain extent, you are correct, however:
In the case of the NT tests they used a patch to assign each card to a processor (affinity)
This option, to my knowledge, was not available to the Linux boxes. I believe that the TCP/IP stack in the Linux kernel is bound to a single processor. I still see this as a SMP problem and not the fact that they used 4 NICs. It is still correct to say that Linux has serious SMP scalability problems, even Mindcraft admit however, that these issues are being worked on in the development kernel thread 2.3 and will hopefully become a standard performance improvement feature of 2.4 .
We can't blame NT for supporting a function that Linux doesn't, though it would be interesting to have a benchmark based on the following:
Using $x, contruct a system using NT and a system using Linux, tune the systems to their full ability.
With this type of benchmark, Linux can better compete, because of the following:
1. For low values of x NT will simply not run or cannot be purchased and hence is disqualified from the test.
2. The system can utilise a cluster topology, which although slightly more expensive for n systems, would at least provide a linear improvement per CPU. For n=4 and mid-range x, the recoup over costs of Enterprise NT Server, still make this viable for Linux to compete with NT.
It is also clear to note that many Internet websites have an aggregate bandwidth of 512kbps or less and seldom actually reach the loads that were reached in the benchmark tests. It's the case of the limiting factor again.
Let's get back to the real world: There are many webmasters and sysadmins who are perfectly happy running Linux on their Web Servers, they know the systems work, and they know that they don't have to monitor them as closely as one does with some other systems that are available on the market.
"And NT? The F-4 Phantom. The gun used to ship separately, and it is living proof that, with a big enough engine, even a rock can fly."
Actually, I would have to compare NT to an F-102 Starfighter. Yeah, it did Mach 2+, but it also took half a state to turn around. The F-18 doesn't go quite as fast, but it's exponentially nimbler...
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Because the vast majority of people who will heed MindCrafts advice (big corps) are running a Windows of some form on the desktop.
It'll be much easier to get Linux into the server closet if it speaks the same protocols as existing servers, making the transition invisible to the end users and network.
Maybe one day if Linux is on 90% of the desktops, then it'll be worth while to test performance of NT workstations connecting to Linux servers via NFS vs. Linux workstations connecting to Linux servers via NFS. Not today though.
What is the point of comparing the speed of Apache which is a MultiTASK server with IIS which is a MultiTHREAD server?
Because they're comparing the performance of various webservers. Each implements it's functionality differently, but the end result in both cases is a client (browser) requests a page from the server. The server then sends that page to the client.
Whatever the server does during that makes no difference (to me, at least) so long as it gives the right page back to the client in a reasonable timeframe.
Tomorrow's headlines in the basketball press:
Big Fat Guy outperforms Lean Scrappy Dude in Basketball Competition
-- $SIGNATURE
Ok people I can't understand this. Why this Mindcraft crap has put everybody in the wheels???
Windows NT better than Linux? That's questionable in detail but the general result is that Linux IS better than Windows. Sorry Windows fans, but I had some serious troubles with Windows stuff to say good words from it. Both on workstation and server side. And in the same hardware Linux outperformed NT in every detail, except beauty. However Linux is not a solution for all. Frankly a good professional should measure what OS is better for a specific task. In fact a lot of high-performance servers are better done on FreeBSD. If you need an Abrams-class server then it is better to use Solaris. If your server will look much like an autoban of data with a lot of warehouses, than choose Novell. If you have a lot of interface work and one-tasked server than Windows has a good chance to do the job. And Linux is a hybrid of a rocker/viloncelist capable of playing 7 instruments at once.
Oh! And don't forget about DOS. They are a Hell on small server systems. Easy, fast and good preformance...
Why is it that NT puppets like to say stuff like you just did, I hear it all the time, usually in retort to seeing things like really high uptimes in linux
- -------------------
No, it's not the uptime I'm responding to. It's the claim the original poster made that his NT box must be rebooted every day in order to prevent crashes. You should read the article before you start name-calling (NT puppet). And you haven't rebooted your server? Not even for security or kernel patches? You may want to sacrifice a few reboots for the sake of security.
--------------------------------------