From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Apr 14 23:56:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from gms.gmsnet.com (gms.gmsnet.com [206.154.112.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7F514C83 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:56:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drkhoe@gmsnet.com) Received: (from drkhoe@localhost) by gms.gmsnet.com (GMS888/GMS888) id XAA23108; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904150654.XAA23108@gms.gmsnet.com> From: drkhoe@gms.gmsnet.com (Dr. Mosh) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:54:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: Kent Stewart Re: Fact or Fiction (Unix vs NT) (Apr 14, 11:34pm) Reply-To: drkhoe@gmsnet.com Current: drkhoe@gmsnet.com Other: drkhoe@arkane.com Location: MoshLand (A suburb of LIMBO) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Kent Stewart , Michael Slater Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction (Unix vs NT) Cc: "'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> > LOS GATOS, Calif., April 13. Today, Mindcraft released the results >> > of a study comparing the performance of Red Hat Linux 5.2 (updated >> > to the Linux 2.2.2 kernel) and Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 >> > operating systems. According to the report, Windows NT Server >> > provides over three and a half times the performance of Linux as a >> > Web server. Furthermore, the report shows that when testing Windows >> > NT Server and Linux as file servers, Windows NT Server provides over >> > two and a half times the performance of Linux. The full report, >> > including all of the details needed to reproduce the tests, is on >> > Mindcraft's Web site at: >> > >> > http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html. >> > What I find interesting about this whole article is that it was "sponsored" by Microsoft, and if you look under their Apache configuration, MaxSpareServers = 290 That means it would fire up potentially 290 spare threads for each request, in effect throttling Linux's kernel... This puts their whole Linux/Unix know how in doubt, also, they claim Linux only used 960megs of the 4gigs of RAM, when a kernel recompile could've fixed the problem. I doubt if they understood the effective use of swap space either... -The Doc -- ------ drkhoe@gmsnet.com -------------- ++++++ ---------------------- ///// http://progmetal.gmsnet.com ----------------==== Unix systems - C/C++ video game engine development =><=============== Administration ===================== Intranet/Internet Engineering ================= To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message