> 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.
Pick any result and pay for it.
> Here is the zdnet response to the test:
>
>http://www.excite.com/computers_and_internet/tech_news/zdnet/?article=/news/19990415/2242246.inp
Interesting, speculative and also wildly inaccurate. NT won their tests because
someone (either the test lab or MS) very carefully chose to misconfigure the
system.
An out of the box Linux 2.0 setup with an SMP kernel dropped over it gives
very different graphs to those. An untuned 2.2.x x>=4 does likewise
Someone specifically sat down and said
o I've heard 2.2.2 has an interoperability problem with NT where
the odd NT/Windows ack patterns cause slow transfers
o This scsi controller here appears to be known to be slow and not
working SMP in this beta, lets specify that.
And mindcruft also didn't look at www.linux.org.uk at all for example.
This is not a technical matter, its exactly the same as if I decided to publish
a Linux thrashes NT flat benchmark using 16Mb machines to make NT look
artificially worse than the dreadful figures it gives anyway.
Alan
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
