[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If they where running samba and apache thru inetd (which is possible, but
> insane) that more than justifies the lousy performance.
>
> We don't know this, but it's possible.
>
> And this whole thread is way off topic, so unless someone can give comments
> on the SMP scaling, I think we should end it here.
No, i don't believe it is "way off topic". It does border on belonging
in .advocacy; but the fact is that the "test" benchmarked
Linux SMP vs. NT SMP and Linux failed. Miserably. If indeed Linux
suffered a nervous breakdown and slid rapidly to 0 throughput, that
needs to be addressed.
It is important to find out what went wrong.
Here is the zdnet response to the test:
http://www.excite.com/computers_and_internet/tech_news/zdnet/?article=/news/19990415/2242246.inp
--
_,--"
dik `-._ ________-_______ "----
_----'--'--------------------------------'--'----_
//_| | \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] / | |_\\
(_____|_|__= Waterbury CT +1.203.757.6994 =__|_|_____)
_\_____=___ http://www.buckosoft.com ___=_____/_
\/-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-`------'-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-\/
Early Klingon Poetry:
Wustl, Wustl, ERR RIP MIT BOOT, BIND Wustl
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
