Re: [TCLUG:5285] NTS4 vs. Linux study from Mindcraft.

[pani@frontiernet.net]

Going through that article and the comments made me wonder if 
there are any people who are as strong advocates of NT as the
"ordinary linux at home user" is of linux.

I am kind of sure that mindcrafts mailboxes are going to be
flooded with a lot of flames from "linux-huggers!" I do not
ever see many Pro-WinXX comments from readers as there are pro-linux
on the "linux-vs-WinXX" articles.

Take no notice of me. I am just plain bored right now and not
the least bit sleepy. I guess that is the reason why I am butting
into this "discussion" if there is any, since I usually stay 
away from those debates of this kind. 
--

Scott Dier wrote:
> 
> Actually, its been done.
> 
> www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issure/0,4537,2196106,00.html
> 
> Smart Reseller has been running a ton of pro-linux benchmarks and such
> too other than this one.  So existing evidence is there that linux does
> beat nt.
> 
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 pani@frontiernet.net wrote:
> 
> > Scott Dier wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, If you havent seen on Slashdot allreaday --
> > >
> > > Mindcraft has released a report saying that NT is faster for web and file
> > > serving.  Go read it.  Check out some of the graphs.  Like the apache one,
> > > where it just drops off in the middle of the graph.  Why?
> > I guess all that we need to do is prove them wrong eh ?  Which
> > would mean duplicate the tests and see how they measure up.
> >
> > But then it would take the fun out of all the "discussions" that
> > this is going to spawn. :-).
> >
> > I hope somebody from the "linux" turf with the know-how carries
> > out the same test in the immediate future and show us all "how
> > wrong" mindcraft is.
> >
> > my 2c,
> > sandipan
> >
> > >
> > > Because Mindcraft is a bunch of inept sysadmins.  So when your boss goes
> > > NT is better than Linux, you can tell them about these facts.
> > >
> > > Mindcraft turned off "widelinks" in samba.   From the original author of
> > > Samba he said that with it turned off it takes 6 more function calls to
> > > perform operations.  That sounds like it would probally run faster
> > > (Someone should get around and prove this.)
> > >
> > > Secondly, the apache stuff can be explained by one thing : File
> > > Descriptors.  You can change them to higher numbers if you want, but
> > > Mindcraft left them at the standard number.  So while the computer *was
> > > not* hitting its max CPU, it was waiting for a file descriptor.  Mindcraft
> > > could have reconfigured the kernel and had /much/ better performance and
> > > see that Apache, while it might not be faster -- scales much better than
> > > IIS does.  I saw an article from a /long/ time ago on a zdnet site that
> > > showed apache scaling from 100 to a ton more (1000+ i think) as a flat
> > > line for latency of getting pages.  Thats cool :)
> > >
> > > Really, I'm throwing this forth as a discussion object and as something so
> > > when the FUD hits the non-techies and they ask you about it you have
> > > something concrete that you know is right.