I think the price comparrison as the users go up say it all, even if the performance was equal!
Kiggs On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 23:44, Bernard Wanyama wrote: > Maybe you have seen this, but I wanted to post it tonight before Kiggs' > morning post.... > > http://www.flexbeta.net/main/printarticle.php?id=81 > > Flexbeta has posted a comparision of SLES9 and Windows 2003 server. The > article includes an "out-of-the-box" comparison of Windows and SLES file > sharing speeds (using netbench). The results look good for Samba: > > With this hardware Windows 2003 Server seems to max out on performance at > approximately 30 Clients with a throughput of about 135Mbps, where SLES > seems to max out on performance at approximately 60 Clients with a > throughput of about 255Mbps. The response time is also about twice as fast > on SLES9 than on Win2k3 on the same hardware. So, in theory, you can > handle twice as many clients on the same hardware using SLES9 compared to > using Windows 2003 Server. > Also: > > Novell's SLES9 pretty much more than doubles the performance of > Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server on the exact same hardware in both > categories. This is very, very impressive, and shows the strengths of both > Samba and the Linux kernel [...] > > > Kind regards, _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
