Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:21:26 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au> To: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@chen.ml.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: NT4 server 2.5 times faster than Linux Message-ID: <199904150921.TAA28780@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <3714EFA7.239DEBF5@chen.ml.org> from Luoqi Chen at "Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:42:31 -0400" References: <3714EFA7.239DEBF5@chen.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 14th April 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote: >Saw this on yesterday's slashdot news: > http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html >I wonder how well FreeBSD would perform. I wonder also. The load is much higher than similar NT vs Linux tests that I've seen. And the hardware is all very, very new. People shouldn't be so quick to dump on Mindcraft, even if they were bought by Microsoft. The facts of the report should be digested and argued rationally. Then, if we find that Mindcraft have deliberately distorted things, we can dump on them. :-) So far I've spotted only 2 relevant facts: 1) "Drive D/Data: 8 x 4 GB Seagate Barracuda, Model ST34573WC, 7,200 RPM; two partitions - one data partition for each OS" The two operating systems shared the drive array, so one of them got the good bit, and one got the bad bit. This is flawed testing. 2) "The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM" The box had 4GB of RAM, but Linux got to use less than 1GB. Poor Linux. This was such a fair test! :-( Do we recall a previous test where our favourite OS used only a portion of the total RAM? Now, what are the chances that FreeBSD Inc could purchase the services of Mindcraft to test a properly tuned FreeBSD box vs this NT box? Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904150921.TAA28780>