[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       suse-linux-e
Subject:    Re: [SLE] Another shabby Microsoft deception.(OT)
From:       Stephen Allewell <stephen () mirramar ! fsnet ! co ! uk>
Date:       2003-05-18 14:10:20
[Download RAW message or body]

James Mohr wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 May 2003 16:36, Fred A. Miller wrote:
> 
>>Quoting:
>>
>>   Is Windows 2003 Server really faster than Linux/Samba?
>>
>>   Here comes Windows 2003 Server! And it's faster than Linux,
>>   because Microsoft cheated with the benchmarks! May 9, 2003
>>
>>Article summary:
>>
>>   Microsoft claims Windows 2003 Server is twice as fast as
>>   Linux, at least when it's used for file serving. I spoke to Jeremy
>>   Allison, head of the Samba team, who provided a few insights into
>>   the test configurations that don't leap out at the reader because
>>   they are hidden away in appendixes to the benchmark document.
>>   Allison feels this, in itself, is substantially responsible for
>>   the outcome. (1,000 words)
>>
>>See:  http://www.linuxworld.com/go.cgi?id=742352
> 
> 
> What I interpreted from that is something that I have been saying for a long 
> time and that is Windows is better suited for SOHOs, mom-n-pop shops, than 
> Linux. From the user perspective it is pretty obvious in that most people are 
> used to the Window GUI and the switch to KDE or Gnome is an extra burden that 
> costs any company and resources. 
> 
> Now we have the server perspective. It seems that right out of the box Windows 
> is faster than Linux. Isn't that what the mon-n-pop shops want? They want 
> something they can quickly install and not spend the time tweaking. AFAIK the 
> ext3fs is default for many distributions and not XFS. So the out of the box 
> (i.e. the default) Linux has some weaknesses. In a company with it's own IT 
> department, where they know about things like this (or should know), the can 
> make the neessary changes to the default (even without "tweaking").
> 
> Regards,
> 
> jimmo
> 

If you read the report, the Windows server wasn't an out of the 
box install.  It had been tweaked using various registry hacks, 
much out of the league of mom-n-pop shops.  They also used a 64K 
file system block size, whereas, IIRC, the default for NTFS is 
4K, just as with the ext3.

The whole point is that what was tested wasn't representative of 
what would be the default for a Windows server installation.  So 
the comparison isn't valid.


Steve


-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]