NT was significantly faster than Linux in one "pretty much" unrealistic benchmark.
Linux was massively faster in two "somewhat" unrealistic benchmarks.
Linux was slightly faster in the other benchmarks.
So please tell me why do you think that NT/IIS is "a better high performance web/file server"???
The point is that NT is optimized for one single case, possibly only needed by something like a mega high volume porn site (static pages, as Alan Cox pointed out), and linux does better in all other cases.
And if you want to server MANY files, you need to buy TEN NT boxes instead of ONE Linux box.
For the T1: Linux is a fine solution for a 100MBit site. A T1 is 1.5 MBit.
Please do not confuse the facts.
Linux IS faster: New Benchmarks Here
on
Reiserfs Released
·
· Score: 1
Summary: - NT is faster in one unrealistic test. - Linux is much faster in one somewhat unrealistic test (CGI on NT). - Linux is much faster in a more realistic test (many files). - Linux is slightly faster in all other tests.
I still wonder why the Linux guys accepted the unrealistic test for the PC Week benchmark ("Mindcraft 3") and didn't insist on additional realistic benchmarks.
Did I miss this one on the Slashdot front page? Or weren't they posted? If they weren't, please someone kick Rob...
goths: ah, I see. "survival of the most sadistic": Yes, seems to me this is one of the primary lessons kids learn at school. Reasons for market of virtual violence: agreed.
However, remember: for kids, playing [any games] is a typical method to learn for real live (ok, more for the younger ones).
Slashdot Mirror
- pretty much everybody uses one of the configurations c't tested
- pretty much nobody uses or will use mindcraft's setup (raid 0, 400 mbit net connection, 4 way xeon server to exclusively serve static pages)
- like probably no other magazine in europe, c't is renowned for independence, objectiveness, competence
- what is known about mindcraft is that they did another test some time ago, seemingly with a setup advantageous for NT (against Novell Netware)
and:
- the mindcraft test was payed by microsoft, mindcraft conducted the test in a microsoft lab, mindcraft used microsoft email accounts
- the c't test was payed by Heise verlag. And by the way: Heise runs Solaris.
If you are really objective now, what will your conclusion look like?
A UNIX box kicking 12 NT boxes to nirvana every morning is a pretty much entertaining notion.
Nice!
Read harder.
And think harder.
NT was significantly faster than Linux in one "pretty much" unrealistic benchmark.
Linux was massively faster in two "somewhat" unrealistic benchmarks.
Linux was slightly faster in the other benchmarks.
So please tell me why do you think that NT/IIS is "a better high performance web/file server"???
The point is that NT is optimized for one single case, possibly only needed by something like a mega high volume porn site (static pages, as Alan Cox pointed out), and linux does better in all other cases.
And if you want to server MANY files, you need to buy TEN NT boxes instead of ONE Linux box.
For the T1: Linux is a fine solution for a 100MBit site. A T1 is 1.5 MBit.
Please do not confuse the facts.
c't/heise Linux/NT benchmarks
It's good. Read it!
Summary:
- NT is faster in one unrealistic test.
- Linux is much faster in one somewhat unrealistic test (CGI on NT).
- Linux is much faster in a more realistic test (many files).
- Linux is slightly faster in all other tests.
I still wonder why the Linux guys accepted the unrealistic test for the PC Week benchmark ("Mindcraft 3") and didn't insist on additional realistic benchmarks.
Did I miss this one on the Slashdot front page?
Or weren't they posted?
If they weren't, please someone kick Rob...
Well, because Windows is the "state-of-the-art in user-hostile behaviour" it is on 90% of the desktops, right?
Face it, it IS the state of the art. Not because it' s good, but because anything else is worse.
Most people can operate Windows. And most people get massively frustrated as soon as they try Linux.
Caldera might better this. And you complain.
Oh dear.
goths: ah, I see.
"survival of the most sadistic": Yes, seems to me this is one of the primary lessons kids learn at school.
Reasons for market of virtual violence: agreed.
However, remember: for kids, playing [any games] is a typical method to learn for real live (ok, more for the younger ones).
well, isn't knfsd still tagged as "experimental"?
If yes, then you shouldn't base any reliability judgements on it...