On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 09:30 -0600, Duke, Brian wrote: > Like crashing, auto-rebooting, memory leaking, program cost, etc... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 9:21 AM > To: mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: RE: Linux vs. Windows? > > On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 09:55 -0500, Jay Blanchard wrote: > > [snip] > > Same machine, any performance difference? > > [/snip] > > > > Yes. Linux will consistently outperform Windows in many areas. > > Except for those areas that it doesn't.
In all seriousness, what operating system you use should not be based on expected performance. It should be based on your ability to administer it. If I were to test the performance of MySQL on two identical machines, one running Windows and one running Debian, I can almost guarantee that the Linux box would blow the Windows box away. On the flip side, my company would be better off running MySQL on a Windows box rather then one of our Solaris or AIX boxen, since none of us know much about them (they're maintained by our corporate office). Even though Linux more or less acts like its big UNIX cousins, the nitty gritty details of system administration, security, and patching are much difference. So put your database on whatever platform you're comfortable running. If you can secure a Windows box and make it stable, use Windows. If you can secure a Debian or RedHat or <insert flavor of UNIX/Linux here>, use it. You'll get a much higher return on investment from making sure that the server itself is set up correctly and the tables and queries that run on it are set up correctly then you will tuning e2fs parameters on a Linux box, or whatever it is that Windows admins do to make their boxen faster. -- Pat Adams Applications Programmer SYSCO Food Services of Dallas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
