Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NT vs. Linux - Mindcraft Vindicates Itself

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the can't-win-'em-all dept.

Linux 468

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.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mindcraft were fair (1)

Denny (2963) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532798)

They weren't that outrageous the first time either...

Let's face it, Linux isn't perfect... it's just a lot better on average than the alternatives...

Denny

gawddamn.. (1)

DjFilthyRich (72576) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532799)


what a crying shame...

ohwell... maybe next year boys..

yeehaww...

i'd like to see a freebsd comparison actually..

chixdiggit.
-r.

Bang per $$ effect... (2)

Uller-RM (65231) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532800)

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.

Coincidence? (2)

Rendus (2430) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532801)

These benchmarks were released on the day of Gates' Comdex Keynote? Coincidence?

Bah, who am I trying to fool?

this is just as lame as all the other bench by min (1)

lubricated (49106) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532802)

lets see there is a newer version of redhat. complete with a new glibc contains alot of speedups. there is also a new kernel with a big crapload of smp improvements. this isn't news. mindcraft will never come out with benchmarks showing linux as the victor. These benchmarks don't even say where improvements need to be done since they don't use the newest software. I'm sure the nt server had the newest service pack.

Re:gawddamn.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532803)

FreeBSD would be trounced by both Linux and NT in mindcraft style tests, since they focused on 4 processor servers. Thanks for playing though.

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532804)

Grow up, learn to take defeat -- Alan Cox and Redhat engineers participated in this, do you think they didn't do their job correctly?

I wish we didn't have to do this... (2)

Psiren (6145) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532805)

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...

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532806)

they weren't allowed to do their jobs correctly because they had to use old software

It's a fair cop, guv... (1)

mattbee (17533) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532807)

So Windows NT is a faster file server and marginally faster web-server on single-processor machines. I don't think anyone expected the results to be reversed for the second test. But look at it this way: NT's strength is (currently) in raw performance and that'll take a while for the Free Software community change. But what'll never change about NT is the price while Linux servers continue to improve their performance. Linux is currently able to take a substantial slice out of NT's customer-base, and it's a slice that's getting bigger as Linux-based software develops. What are MS going to do to win back Linux converts, then?

I'm curious as to whether anyone reading (okay, biased readership, but stil...) has actually decided Linux is not the solution for their business, and decided that, all in all, paying for NT is a more cost-effective solution, rather than deciding to go from NT to Linux.

Sometimes, it just a matter of saying things.... (2)

jf.lauzon (63950) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532808)

They wrote:
"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 :(, like they don't know 2.3 is devel ....

The guy who wrote the FAQ really could go into politics someday... He's go at bending the truth.

*BSD (1)

dox (34097) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532809)

I would really like to see mindcraft publish some benchmarks on the *BSD operating systems, more specifically FreeBSD. After all, its used on such networks as hotmail, yahoo, and cdrom.com

dox

They had to come to this result... (1)

bero-rh (98815) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532810)

If they had suddenly told the world that Linux was faster, they would have called themselves liars. They had to come to this result (which is the direct result of non-realistic test results, and probably giving Microsoft enough time for foul tricks (knowing about the test, they probably created a special service pack optimizing for this situation)).
I'm quite sure a Red Hat 6.1 box with an updated kernel (2.3.28 is MUCH better with SMP and also has some very nice TCP/IP improvements over 2.2.x) would do quite a lot better. (Anyone still using 5.2 in real life, by the way?)

What is the clients were Linux instead of Win95 (1)

Petrus (17053) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532811)


Do you think, that the choice of client might make any difference?
BTW, It sees,e that 1processor performance is about the same both for Linux and NT, right?

where I work (2)

lubricated (49106) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532812)

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.

This is ancient news (4)

BlakeCoverett (102826) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532813)

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

A complete non-story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532814)

The document is from june 30th and has been discussed at slashdot before. I really don't understand how this could pass through as a slashdot story, or why people suddenly 4 months after feel a need to discuss this as if it was a new thing... Let's kill this thread now shall we :-)

Apology In Order (1)

pnatural (59329) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532815)

i seem to recall quite a few disparaging remarks directed against mindcraft and others.


perhaps an formal apology is in order. oh, wait --never mind; this is /.

old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532816)

This report is dated 30 June 1999

Re:They had to come to this result... (1)

jf.lauzon (63950) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532817)

for 5.2? Yes we still do. the boxes are dialup servers. they never die, well.. the update is not needed so why should change something that goes as well?

Re:They had to come to this result... (1)

Vacuum (106320) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532818)

We're still using 4.2 on a box here...the philosophy of the others is "If it ain't broke...." you get the idea...besides it's our only linux box, everything else is solaris.

Bang per $? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532819)

Come on guys, you keep going on about how Linux is "free" but surely you know that purchase cost is only a small (actually, very small) percentage of the cost of running a system? I'd rather pay £300 or whatever an NT server licence is now, and get a faster OS, than get a slower OS for nothing and then have to pay a pile of gurus to make it work. Controversial or what? No, just good business sense.

Did they stripe the network cards? (1)

Epeeist (2682) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532820)

The one thing I couldn't determine was whether they were striping the network traffic across the cards on the NT based systems.

Since these machines look network bound this just might make a difference :-)

Short note (1)

zero-one (79216) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532821)

Conclusions

Mindcraft's credibility and reputation have been vindicated.


While dont disagree with the results, I think the above conclusion might have been the one they were aimming for.

Nothing new (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532822)

There is nothing new about these tests. Yes, it shows once again that NT beats Linux at serving static pages over a 100 Mbit connection. Again, dynamic web pages are not included in the test. Do I have to say how unrealistic this is? Most major websites serve pages with active content these days and very few af them have a 100 Mbit connection.
C't magazine has so far posted the most realistic comparison so far. I agree that work has to be done on the TCP/IP stack and kernel locks in the linux kernel but I am convinced that these issues will be resolved soon. Then microsoft will go and find another situation in which Linux performs worse than NT and will focus their PR machine on that.

Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532823)

No one in their right minds would base their IT decisions on these fools now (note that there are a lot of people not in their right minds out there).

All these "benchmarks" prove is that with the same hardware deliberately chosen to cause a performance hit, and the same deliberately obsolete open source software, comapared to massively carefully tuned NT, they can repeat their skewed test results. Big wow. Same garbage in, same garbage out...

And even so, You're still looking at
linux = $0.00 + sysadmins,

NT= $800+$50/client + sysadmins + higher HW requirements.

And *good* NT sysadminning is not cheaper than *good* linux sysadminning, especially since the NT sysadmin will typically have to work longer hours, since remote adminning NT costs even more...

These benchmarks are only out to give Billy boy something to talk about.

Linux will succeed on its own merits - no one under 25 coming out of decent colleges /wants/ to work on NT, and they all act as linux advocates even if they end up working on NT for whatever reason.

Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532824)

Mindcraft have proven that one specific NT based software configuration runs faster then one specific Linux based software configuration using one hardware setup, for a couple of specific applications, in a laboratory environment. Linux has been proven successful in real-world situations, in a wide variety of applications. Whether or not mindcraft's tests are valid, Linux is a far better OS then NT.

We must concede... (4)

kdart (574) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532825)

concede that NT is faster than Linux 2.2.6 at ultra-high server loads. I believe the reason most people don't see much difference between NT and Linux in everyday life (in terms of raw performance) is that the vast majority of system loads that most people see are within the linear region of the graphs, where performance shows as being about equal (left side of the graphs).


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.

--

Re:MS will crush the low performance linux OS. bwh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532826)

This is the sort of argument that is really unhelpful. The people who shout loudest (i.e. MS PR and the Anti-MS extremists) would have you beleive that there can only be one OS, and that it should be the one that they personally prefer. My own opinion is that the great thing about Linux and the free-software movement is that it provides a choice. Microsoft will never provide one operating system to suit everyone, but neither will Linux either.

Yawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532827)

Not again! I really really don't care what's faster or better, NT or Linux. I like using Linux and I will continue to use it. It's a waste of money all these boring benchmarks.

Re:Apology In Order (2)

platypus (18156) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532828)

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.

Go troll elsewhere (1)

leereyno (32197) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532829)

I can't imagine anyone, even a lunatic, would ever think that MS's products are the best. What will 2000 do? Crash. The code base for windows is an ugly mess full of kludges. That is why they continuously push the release dates back. Windows 98 was originally windows 97. Linux on the other hand has a much more easily manageable code base. Any advantage NT has will be short lived at best. I'll bet you own stock in Microsoft, right?

OK, Yes, Fine, BUT: (4)

GC (19160) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532830)

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?

This looks good for Linux. (1)

throx (42621) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532831)

Ok, so we get another look at Linux (which has been developed primarily on single processor machines and started as a test system) compared to NT (developed by a company with effectively infinite hardware resources for its developers) and really expect the SMP scaling to compare?

Let's remember that the 2.2 kernels were just the start of SMP for Linux where NT was written for SMP from the beginning. Ok, so Linux lost this round? So what?

These tests are good for the industry (both Linux and NT) - they show each where they need to improve. Linux needs improvement. It will improve. Lets run the benchmarks every 6 months and watch the way things develop.

John Wiltshire

Re:It's a fair cop, guv... (1)

crt (44106) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532832)

Actually, NT's strengths include ease of administration, volume and breadth of applications, and ease of finding developers & admins, in addition to speed.

40% faster is a bit more than marginal, and in fact, if I could save 40% in horesepower on the $10k servers I buy, I can more than than pay for that NT license.

Linux will always be great for cheap, departmental, non-mission-critical servers where cost is more important than performance anyway. But if you're already pay $10-$20k for a server, another thousand for the NT license is NOT A BIG DEAL (especially if you get better performance). Price matters, but only in relation to total machine cost.

Re:Bang per $? (1)

scoof (2459) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532833)

You're right, anybody can make an NT boot, but only a few understand the security model thoroughly. Even most MCSE's don't, so your choice here is:
1. Buy NT, get somebody who understands it, and can see through it's obscure "happy, happy" colors GUI, pay a truckload for this.
2. Download a linux dist, get a geek who lives for it, and understands it.

Fact is: NT's GUI only serves as a way of making you believe you can administer it properly, while you can't.

Re:Go troll elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532834)

Can minors own stock in America?

Re:Not really - fair test! .... (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532835)

It wouldn't have been fair to use a 2.3.x kernel -it is accepted, even by the Linux community that:

a) 2.3.x kernels are development kernels and may be unstable

b) 2.3.x kernels are essentially beta software releases and not mainstream releases - the equivalent competitor to 2.3.x is whatever alpha/beta software Microsoft happen to have got for NT5 whenever [if] it surfaces

As a Linux user I have to concede that it looks as though Mindcraft have made every effort to be fair in this test.

So the questions are,
* What can or is being done to [safely] jack up the performance of Linux ?
* Did the test identify any specific bottlenecks ?

Looks fine, but... (2)

Tomahawk (1343) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532836)

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.

Re:MS will crush the low performance linux OS. bwh (0)

leonids (102892) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532837)

God damn mother sucker why can't you people just simply insist that in your opinion windows is more capable? Instead of screaming out loud who sucks and who rules, as if the damn world's future depends on windows/microsoft/windows2000 to save us from some armageddon. Come one trolls, learn to voice your opinions properly

Network latency and fout interfaces. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532838)

Benchmarks were made on low-latency network and with four network interfaces. In reality HTTP server can get load this high only with very high latency of the network -- clients simply can't be that close to the server by the network topology -- backbones cause huge delays. I doubt that with high latency network (can be simulated in laboratory) and single gigabit interface instead of four 100Mbit/s the results will be the same.

Re:This looks good for Linux. (1)

tree_frog (113005) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532839)

Mindcraft are our friends. They go out and they tell us what is wrong with our product. They tell us how much worse than a rival product it is. Stop wingeing. Make it better....

Efficiency == Profitability (1)

LL (20038) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532840)

Reminds me of an old story where they set up a contest between a hand shearer (of sheep) against the new-fangled electric shears. The manual champion won and everyone thought the electric shears was going to be tossed .... then the electric shearer got another few pounds of wool off the hand-shorn sheep, ie less wastage == more profits.

While people might not think a few percentage makes a lot of difference, it should be pointed out that in high volume businesses, companies like Wal-Mart sustain a long-term competitive advantage over their peers by adopting a pervasive mindset to control their costs. While Linux may not be a gas-guzzling speed champion on pre-slected race-grounds, the lack of restrictive licenses (operational cost less dependent on #connections) and the ability to control your own environment (ie upgrade at your own pace) offer value in other ways. These savings would add up when hosting very large web farms.

Different horses for different courses.

LL

NT client, 1P linux? (2)

gargle (97883) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532841)

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.

New tux logo ? (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532842)

In light of the Mindcraft results maybe this story should have had a different logo

A skinned Tux being eaten by Bill Gates perhaps ?
:-)

P.S. Do not regard this as Flamebait - I use Linux ! Honest !

Re:where I work (1)

leonids (102892) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532843)

Since Microsoft has been trying to encourage companies from switching over to unix, maybe someone should run a benchmark on NT against Solaris, or any other commercial tested-and-trusted unix.

Results might be interesting, if it doesn't get skewed/screwed again.

We use NT as a file server at my work (2)

leereyno (32197) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532844)

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.

Re:Bang per $$ effect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532845)

A question really, if Linux has better SMP support why does it scale worse than NT on a 4-CPU box? I agree about uptime though...

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (1)

habig (12787) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532846)

So you're saying that RH6.1 is a factor of two faster than RH6.0?

Come on.

Sure there is currently a better version of about everything. But, given the time scale upon which linux evolves, there will ALWAYS be new versions of components by the time a place like Mindcraft finishes writing up a detailed white paper about what they did.

If those updates rectify the factor of two the benchmarks see, then bitch for a rematch. Until then, accept reality, and work on making the next version better.

*** NOTE: THIS IS __OLD__ NEWS *** (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532847)

Look at the date on the webpage. Its OLD. How the hell did this get into slashdot.

Other benchmarks (1)

chobbs (114741) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532848)

Has anyone else considered setting up their own machine to try out some different benchmarks? Admittedly, fileserving and webserving are the two main apps you want a server to perform, but what's the reason we all use Linux at home and NT at work?

Surely there are some more real world comparisons we can make to push the point that Linux is a more usable, sturdy and fun platform to work with.

The web is a great leveller, so why don't we start putting up our own "official" (!) pages detailing where linux beats NT hands down. Then we can really put the willies up MS.

Re:Looks fine, but... (1)

AYEq (48185) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532849)

I was always uder the assumption that /. used MySQL not Oracle... but I could be wrong... Also slashdot (after the andover.net buy) runs with 4 servers now I think.. One SQL server and the traffic is load balanced between three linux/apache boxes. Now I am not a network engineer by any means but I am pretty sure that I have read this..

Why the hell are we discussing it? (3)

arivanov (12034) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532850)

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).

Does it really matter (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532851)

I find this tit-tat issue funny. DOES IT REALLY MATTER? For example while they mention that the Zeus server has the same problem, at least there is a choice on Linux.

NT is a good OS. And yes IIS is a good Web Server. But there is NO CHOICE!!! And that to me is a bigger problem.

You see problems can be fixed in both Linux and in Apache. But what happens if there is a problem in NT and IIS? Can I switch Web Servers? Not easily. Can I fix IIS? Not at all.

Mindcraft benchmark (1)

drnomad (99183) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532852)

NT performing better than Linux, I guess I can accept the results. But in what sense are the benmarks a Solaris-level comparison. Don't Microsoft try to compare Windows NT and Linux on points where useually Solaris is the only winner? OK NT performs better than Linux, does everybody need that performance? Just some little doubts I have

Re:Bang per $$ effect... (1)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532853)

"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.
"

Um. What makes you say that Linux has better SMP support? Most test seem to indicate that NT makes more efficient use of multiple CPUs. And what makes you think there is better tech support from 3rd parties for Linux? I'm not saying there isn't, but I've certainly found the tech support from large resellers for NT to be good.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but these are both pretty contentious claims without any evidence. Linux's superior stability is probably widely enough accepted.

quick development == obsolescent test (1)

predictive (108569) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532854)

The speed of Linux development renders most of these sort of contests invalid before they hit the street in any case. Anyone with a modicum of coding knowledge could tune the Linux TCP stack and SMP threading to smoke NT in those trials (and much has been done since 5.2 toward that end). You just cannot say that about NT (and not be a flaming liar, anyway).

Server benchmarks don't really matter.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532855)

because right now, the important battle for linux is the desktop world. Be it cubicle machines, small office machines, game machines, or high school computer lab machines, linux is not a viable option in most cases because it simply isn't as easy to use. With Windows 9x, everything is pretty much point and click. Try running linux that way. There are too many people out there who can barely figure out Windows, to them linux seems like rocket science. Server benchmarks are no big deal, what the linux world needs to focus on is desktops, and making linux more idiot friendly (not user friendly, anyone willing to invest a day in linux can become a proficient user for desktop purposes). anyway... -supabeast!, @work

Re:gawddamn.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532856)

Never used it, huh? FreeBSD has had SMP support since v3.0.

FreeBSD SMP Kernel [freebsd.org]

The tests are fixed. (1)

leereyno (32197) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532857)

Obviously Microsoft is the one who is behind all this. They have their programmers and developers sit down and come up with a benchmark spec that they believe they can tweak NT into performing well on. At the same time they try to find areas where Linux is not as strong. After a few months of coding we get service packs for NT and mindcraft conducts its "independent" study. Of course NT comes out ahead, big suprise.

It's the same kind of thing that Apple does when it compares the toys they sell with PC's. What I really like are the photoshop benchmarks where the Mac is so far ahead. What they don't ever bother to tell you is that apple long ago made changes to their OS and put in system calls specifically for Adobe Photoshop. Then there are the straight CPU benchmarks where they take the few instructions from the powerpc that are significantly faster than an equivalent on x86 and say that the processor is faster overall by this factor. Some powerpc instructions are slower, but then they never tell you that. It's the same thing here. Rather than get bent out of shape we should spend our time doing an honest analysis of both platforms and outcoding the sons of bitches.

Re:Not really - fair test! .... (1)

Sun (104778) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532858)

According to Mindcraft's tests, the bottleneck was the Kernel. In particular, the TCP/IP stack is single threaded.

Re:Does it really matter (1)

rcromwell2 (73488) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532859)


Umm, way before I ever used IIS on NT, I had the pleasure of running Netscape Enterprise Server on NT.

There are like 20 web servers for NT.

Re:Bang per $? (2)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532860)

". 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.

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (1)

Reinoud (33024) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532861)

This sounds a lot like all the things people said the last time: "Wait until feature X is ready in Linux".

Face it: The current version of Linux is tested against the current version of NT. Reading the article, it seems that enough people were there to tune everything on the Linux side, so just believe it: NT is better in some things than Linux. And surely, we can think of other circumstances where Linux or another OS is better than NT.

Linux is not the answer to every question.

June 30, 1999?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532862)

June 30, 1999?!

To be fair do this test every month! (1)

Jason Straight (58248) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532863)

Linux is updated on a daily basis in many ways, and using a newer distribution with new glibc, newer apache, samba, kernel, etc. Could be a little more realistic. Granted NT might still be faster but who's making more improvements faster?

Show how fast linux is catching up by using updated software and do another test today!

Re:Nothing new (1)

Slashdot Fool (102557) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532864)

Quite. When I have to serve lots of static pages (porn?) over a very fast link, I'll use NT for it.

This benchmark says nothing about real-world performance, much less the usability of the platform.

Steff

Re:Nothing new (1)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532865)

"Then microsoft will go and find another situation in which Linux performs worse than NT and will focus their PR machine on that."

You make this sound like a criticism. It's what PR machines do. Last I checked RedHat were pretty happy to focus on Linux's superior stability. Apache advocates focus on Apache's features, not its speed or ease of configuration. It's the way things work, deal with it.

Microsoft's PR machine does an excellent job of showing which of Linux's weaknesses most concern people in business. That helps us.

So...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532866)

Benchmarks != Real World Situations Ever. And if Linux needs to improve? I'm sure it will. Legions of people are probably already working on it.

Can *we* make some FreeBSD results? (1)

divec (48748) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532867)

I was wondering if anyone has the hardware available
to perform the same test on FreeBSD? I suspect that
if the test was (MS's fastest OS for the job) vs
(The fastest free OS for the job), MS might well lose.

"Fair" dynamic CGI test (1)

rcromwell2 (73488) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532868)


From what I can tell, c't used fork()'ed CGIs for their comparison against NT which is unrealistic. No high volume site will rely on out-of-process CGI's any longer. All they proved was that Linux fork() is faster than NT's CreateProcess(). But NT excels at threads, not processes. The real test needs to be mod_perl vs ActiveState's PerlScript on NT.


Someone needs to perform a standard transaction-oriented dynamic web test, for instance, maybe a simulation of a auction web site, with simulated buyers and sellers.

We could then benchmark mod_perl vs php3 vs servlets vs ASP vs aolserver vs LiveWire and see which languages and which platforms come out on top.

Alot of people are expecting Linux to win on the dynamic version of such a test, but I wouldn't be so sure. IIS does a lot of unsafe things to boost performance, and I bet its ASP execution path is faster than Apache's (although not as safe/stable)

NT, for all its flaws, has a very efficient threading and asynchronous I/O mechanism which helps it scale very efficiently for some scenarios. Still, I'd love to see a dynamic benchmark.


Re:Yawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532869)

Nice attitude. But, I suppose for some people, ignorance is bliss.

Re:Does it really matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532870)

...including Apache...

Ignore the test. Focus on the bigger picture... (1)

deefer (82630) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532871)

This is bad news for Linux, but not for the reasons noted in previous posts.
Face it, how many of you fellow nerds out there are regularly consulted on HW/SW choices? And even if you are consulted, you will probably be overruled. Like it or not, your PHB controls the purse strings. And (s)he won't be in a position to explain why "free" is better than "corporate standard" to the Directors' Board, until more people understand what Linux is. Most non-nerds don't give a toss about what their servers are, just as long as they keep files & send mail, and let them look at web sites. This is what we need to focus on.
OK, NT beat Linux in a staged test. That's fine, gives the kernel dev team somewhere to aim their efforts. But for the non-nerds, all they take away from this is "NT is better than Linux". I'm not going to go into whether the test was fair or real world representative, just that people see NT beating Linux.
The problem here is the PR, getting the users & PHB's clued up a little on what goes on when they click their mouse buttons. The MS juggernaut has all of the tricks (and has been caught for a few of them :) to keep NT in the minds of those who make software policy in business. And unless RedHat starts investing some of that whacking great IPO in advertising (haven't seen _any_ in the UK), to get the message across, then this sort of thing is the only press which people see Red Hat in. And that will be bad for Red Hat and Linux in general.

Re:It's a fair cop, guv... (1)

Chokai (10224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532872)

Yep. I'm sinking $10 - $15 grand into a new server soon. I could run on Linux or NT I have my choice, no strings attached it's my call.

However NT will be faster for what I want to do and since students will be administrating the system it will be far easier for them. I pretty much passed Linux over without a second thought to be honest. $700 for NT was far less than what the additional cost to get the same performance out of the system running Linux would be. Add on the time I would spend finding (or buying) the necessary tools and then training the students to use them (since they don't know Linux) and Linux gets REALLY pricey in this case. However the way I like to look at it is that I am also in a very unique situation.

Yes this is redudantlargely but I think crt has a VERY valid point.

Re:Looks fine, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532873)

Because these tests were for serving purely static pages over a 100Mbit link! Wonderful. No one in their right mins would use a 4-way SMP box with 1 gig of RAM fo serving pages of static text. These benchmarks do not in any way, shape or form represent realsitc server usage. In reality, almost all web pages hav dynamically-generated content, which means the memory leaks in various NT/IIS subsystems add up cumulatively, meaning you /eventually/ have to reboot the NT box *no matter waht you do*.

Re:Nothing new (1)

Rendus (2430) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532874)

This sort of reminds me of a comment Linus allegedly made:

FreeBSD faster over loopback than Linux over the wire - News at 11!

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (0)

C.Lee (1190) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532875)

>Grow up, learn to take defeat -- Alan Cox and Redhat engineers >participated in this, do you think they didn't do their job >correctly?

Hey astroturfer, the current version of Redhat on the store shelves is 6.1 with an entirely different kernel. It looks like this "article" is nothing but a reprint of the PC Week/Mindcraft farce. Look at the date of the article. This isn't a new benchmark "test" at all.

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (1)

jilles (20976) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532876)

the page says they used rh 5.2

Re:Bang per $? (1)

nodeboy (56853) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532877)

Don't forget you need 3 times as many NT admins to keep X number of NT's running as unix boxes.

I get these figures from my last three employers where the comparison could be made.


Re:Why the hell are we discussing it? (1)

Rob the Roadie (2950) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532878)

Flawed benchmarking?

I have never experianced any issues from using quad-ethernet in the past.

RedHat and Dell made a press release stating that the Dell server used in the test was a "Red Hat Ready" configuration.

The hardware and network configuration were agreed upon by all parties.The test showed which performed best under the configuraiton.

Roblimo is right. This test is not about "bang for bucks" it's about sheer performance. The tests speak for themselves. NT beat a RedHat Linux installation fair and square.

The important question here is not "Are Microsoft behind this?" but "What can we learn from this?". All the kernal hackers and module developers need to read this very carefully and work out a stratergie for development on a global scale. Were does Linux progress from here?

Important questions to be answered. (1)

Rob the Roadie (2950) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532879)

Roblimo is right. This test is not about "bang for bucks" it's about sheer performance. The tests speak for themselves. NT beat a RedHat Linux installation fair and square.

The important question here is not "Are Microsoft behind this?" but "What can we learn from this?". All the kernal hackers and module developers need to read this very carefully and work out a stratergie for development on a global scale. Were does Linux progress from here? What should be the main focus for development in the future? What can be done to overcome these test results?

We all have the answers to these questions but do we all know where to send them?

Vindicated? (1)

pslam (97660) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532880)

Mindcraft seem to be saying that because they've rebenchmarked everything "fairly", their previous benchmark is vindicated. Doh? I'm sorry, Mindcraft, but your previous benchmark is just as completely rubbish as it always was regardless of all the spin put into this new one.

An important thing to remember is that a statistic is a representation of exactly the data you collect - in this case, it's representative of what you get when you benchmark an old Linux kernel against the latest NT server with hardware that Linux is known to not get the best out of (4 processors). The good thing is that now these results are known, something can be done about it.

I would enjoy Red Hat asking Mindcraft to rerun the benchmarks when these problems are addressed in the Linux kernel.

Re:They had to come to this result... (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532881)

I'm still using 5.2, it sucks

(wishes he could upgrade the box, but it is three hours away from his location)

Re:It's a fair cop, guv... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532882)

Most students I know coming out of college prefer adminning Linux to NT. UNIX is what they've learnt in college, despite MS's best efforts to bribe their way into Universities, and they sheer randomness of NT crashes pisses them off (at least with linux, you always have the feeling things happen for a reason). Forcing students to use NT will feel to them like being forced to eat baby food.

Re:We must concede... (3)

Weerdo (24976) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532883)

Reading is difficult:
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.

(taken from the mindcraft report:)
Phase 3
Phase 3 used both a one- and four-processor configuration of the same Dell server. Mindcraft used the same version of Windows NT Server 4.0 as in Phases 1 and 2. Red Hat chose to use Red Hat Linux 6.0 upgraded to the 2.2.10 kernel ("Linux" in Phase 3). See Phase 3 of this white paper for the other software and hardware changes that Red Hat made.

File-Server Tests
Figure 3 shows the file-server performance we measured and the scaling between one- and four-processor configurations. Linux file-server performance on a four-processor system increases by 43% over a one-processor system. Windows NT Server, on the other hand, improves performance on a four-processor system by 105% over a one-processor system.

. 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.
When in danger, a cat makes strange moves..
The test was about Linux and NT, NOT Sun (a total different kind of cup of tea) and NT. Microsoft isn't aiming at that market (yet) thus testing Sun (solaris) vs. NT is way out of touch.

What affect does the compiler have? (1)

SweenyTod (47651) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532884)

I'm just a rank beginner with linux, but have been a WinNT programmer for some years now, and have been long told that Microsoft's C compiler has a way better optimizer than GCC does. Is this true, and if so, how large an effect do you think this will have on the performance of the kernel and the modules tested (apache, samba, etc) Thanks.

I don't care... (4)

moonboy (2512) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532885)

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

Prove Linux > NT ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532886)

Has anyone got numbers that shows Linux to outperform NT at all? Even uptime? Please show me a single benchmark (no matter how biased and platform tuned) where Linux actually does well and NT doesn't.

Just be glad you don't work for Mindcraft!!! (4)

Dacta (24628) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532887)

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:

If this was posted on www.microsoft.com, and it was an arguement for NT rather than Linux, would we have trouble disputing it?

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 [thehungersite.com]

Re:Bang per $? (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532888)

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.

I work in a small company. I set up the network there among our four machines (I got duped into having the file server on my machine, too). When it comes down to it, I don't have time to set up any security or strategy, because it isn't my job - I'm a programmer. I can't talk them into letting me devote a day or so to set things up 'right'. So my boss (who is great but not that intelligent about computers) runs executable files attached to e-mails send from friends all day. I know it isn't going to be long until he wipes out my computer and all the other ones on the network, but my hands are tied.

In the situation where you have a limited number of computers, are running NT anyways, and/or cannot get someone to commit to actually implementing a strategy for security, NT is going to win, because it is designed so that morons (like myself) can point and click repeatedly until you have a server set up on the network. But the company across the street from me (now up to four employees!) has a linux box as their server, because it is just plain better and faster, more stable and more secure. You just got to evaluate the need-vs-time-investment-vs-hardware-investment graph, and choose.

Re:this is just as lame as all the other bench by (3)

bueller (100729) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532889)

Run Chicken Little the sky IS falling!

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 [redhat.com] of RedHat was there for the tests and has his spin [redhat.com] on the tests, where he talks about the difficulty of getting a meaningful benchmark. The Tranaction Processing Council [tpc.org] 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.

Re:The tests are fixed. (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532890)

Apple didn't have to put any system calls in for photoshop - Photoshop on mac is an OS in itself :)

Besides, if adobe really wanted a new kernel on the Mac all they have to do is overwrite the old one, it isn't like it is in protected memory or there is a protected area of the disk or anything.

That said, if you look at the benchmarks for the new iMac, they compare the iMac with a Rage128 with (i believe) a lower-clocked celeron with a PCI Rage Pro. hmm.. wow, the iMac came ahead - no surprise.

Oky, WinNT is faster.. so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532891)

We have a stable, economic, and very good Platform for most of the Real Word Jobs, and most important; Keep in mind that it is getting better every single day! ;) Did I mentioned FREE?

Some analysis on results (3)

jhei (104839) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532892)

It seems that those benchmarks have been done properly and that in those two benchmarks Windows NT performs significantly better than Linux. It would be useful to think about reasons for this.

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.

Apache 2 (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532893)

I have read on www.benews.com that there is an effort to port apache to BeOS. As you know, BeOS is pervasively multithreaded, which means it will use multiple processors much better than even NT. Now, Apache 2.0 is a version of Apache utilizes this feature and, therefore, rund much faster. There is an alpha version of Apache 2.0. I guess once Linux kernel gets the pervasively multithreadedness, apache 2.0 will run on it, too. But I wonder how much of a re-engineerig effort this is for Linus?

BTW, there is a Apache 1.3.9 port for BeOS; but the 2.0 is the thing to go for, for BeOS.

here is info on Apache for BeOS [pipex.com]

So, the really cool hting would be for Linux kernel to have pervasive multithreading.







Re:Bang per $$ effect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1532894)

Umm - remember, IIS is free in the NT Option Pack which you can download...Just wanted to clarify things... Jason

Mindcraft was *not* vindicated. (4)

Paul Crowley (837) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532895)

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.
--

Hardware configuration? (4)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532896)

I saw at least one person mention this, but I'll say it again:

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 [heise.de] , 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 [kegel.com] : 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.

NT in the Real World (1)

ScumBiker (64143) | more than 14 years ago | (#1532897)

You moved your mouse. Please restart the computer to complete the changes.
What I'm saying here is this. You can't use NT in a 24/7 environment unless you want to spend twice as much for a spare server. You make a simple change on an NT server and you have to reboot. No so good for the enterprise...




webmaster: http://amazing.divingdeals.com
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?