NT vs Linux as web server
My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up! (ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word) Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising! Rich Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 10:45:01AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Well, start with zdnet, who did reviews with the exact same benchmarks and came to almost the opposite conclusions. Also, try lwn.net, which is compiling a list of grevious errors in this study. -- Ian Peters I never let schooling interfere with my education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Twain
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Peter S Galbraith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.com) is formulating a reply about the inconsistencies/inaccuracies of those tests (I believe the samba server was somewhat crippled among other things), not to mention that they were sponsored BY Microsoft. Check out the response on Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) for other problems. As my Probability and Statistics professor says you can make statistics say whatever you want, but it's not always accurate .adam -- Adam Lazur - Computer Engineering Undergrad - Lehigh University icq# 3354423 - http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4 Besides, I think Slackware sounds better than 'Microsoft,' don't you? -Patrick Volkerding
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter- 1) The white-paper was commissioned by MS. It's right there in the paper. That's the most telling fact in the whole paper. 2) http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml has a list of critiques of the proposal, including the suggestion that they deliberately used a kernel (2.2.2) with known networking problems. They also have a list of links with research you can use to counter theirs, from several respected and independent news sources. 3) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/14/0042212 is /.'s thread on this- lots of interesting observations and criticisms. Make sure you set Highest Scores First- otherwise you will have to search forever to find the pertinent ones. Good luck- I'd strongly suggest sending out at least the lwn.net link to counter the FUD. -Luis ### They call the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spell: There's no place like home... There's no place like home... There's no place like home. -Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon -Dorothy, The Wizard of Oz ###
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Actually, you can find several opposing views directly in the white paper. First of all, the test was sponsored by MS. Try finding an independant test and check the results. ZDnet did one a while back with very different results. Here are a couple of links to check out: http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,396321,00.html Note that these links only really talk about file serving, not web serving. However, they do take some credibility away from the mindcraft survey. There is also a response to the study over at Linux Weekly News: http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml It appears as though Mindcraft spent quite a bit of time tuning NT, and very little time tuning Linux. So, I suppose you should start at the links I've given here. You also might want to talk to some people who use Linux every day for high volume web serving. Rob Malda at Slashdot.org would be worth talking to. His site gets a huge number of hits every day, and really performs quite well considering the amount of dynamic content. noah PGP public key available at http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/home/httpd/n/nmeyerha/mail.html or by 'finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]' This message was composed in a 100% Microsoft free environment. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNxTEm4dCcpBjGWoFAQF4hQP+LvVsj/m8bqr80UJnb5AyGjwq8adLnF7Z 3Y8VSAxq5dJXq2MykdrH9tF/WwO0Pt8jlYvx4uzU1aNSyXLgdIXJ5g48JrlofG+p /Kyiv8H9xlTUUkSyPCGrbnlJs1XSGV0GidOgQk1BuyLw3Na1CERlJfl5U6NRl9Al uwewmcSWWOk= =UfiY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
note the following about 4/5 of the way through Mindcraft, Inc. conducted the performance tests described in this report between March 10 and March 13, 1999. Microsoft Corporation sponsored the testing reported herein. -Michael On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Michael Stenner Office Phone: 919-660-2513 Duke University, Dept. of Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
There have been a lot of discussion on this benchmark on slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org). I had time to take a galnce and it seems that the benchmark is biased. It seems they have done a very good tunning of the NT box and a poor one for the linux box. As a small exemple they have used a server with 4GB of RAM. NT could handle it, but they claim taht linux (kernel 2.2) did recognize only 1 GB. I may be confused but doesn't the new kernel support at least 2GB (I am sure I have seen some VA research workstations with 2GB). What is the maximum linux kernel can handle? Paulo. -- Paulo José da Silva e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.D. Student in Applied Math. University of São Paulo - Brazil http://www.ime.usp.br/~rsilva May the code be with you :-)
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
I have just read the lwn comments. They have pointed out that the NT server was setted to use only 1GB of memory, so my last example of biased tunning doens't apply. Sorry for my error :-). Any way I would be glad to know which is the maximum amount of RAM kernel 2.2 can handle. Thank you all, Paulo -- Paulo José da Silva e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.D. Student in Applied Math. University of São Paulo - Brazil http://www.ime.usp.br/~rsilva May the code be with you :-)
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
The March 22 issue of Smart Reseller (www.smartreseller.com) compared NT and Linux running Samba and it had Linux/Samba way ahead. So I was very surprized to see the test by Mindcraft. Try the following: www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/infopack/0,5483,387506,00.html There are two links on that page -- one for Samba, one for Apache. In both articles, NT fails in the 10 to 12 user area. Good luck! -- Gregory Wood Farsight Computer 1219 W University Blvd Odessa TX 79764 Voice: 1-915-335-0879 Member: CT Pioneers Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter- 1) The white-paper was commissioned by MS. It's right there in the paper. That's the most telling fact in the whole paper. 2) http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml has a list of critiques of the proposal, including the suggestion that they deliberately used a kernel (2.2.2) with known networking problems. They also have a list of links with research you can use to counter theirs, from several respected and independent news sources. 3) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/14/0042212 is /.'s thread on this- lots of interesting observations and criticisms. Make sure you set Highest Scores First- otherwise you will have to search forever to find the pertinent ones. Good luck- I'd strongly suggest sending out at least the lwn.net link to counter the FUD. -Luis ### They call the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spell: There's no place like home... There's no place like home... There's no place like home. -Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon -Dorothy, The Wizard of Oz ### -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Gregory Wood Farsight Computer 1219 W University Blvd Odessa TX 79764 Voice: 1-915-335-0879 Member: CT Pioneers
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Spring 1999 Issue of linux magazine, page 42: LINUX OUTPERFORMED WINDOWS by as much as 250% for 12 or more client systems. (emphasis theirs, this is regarding SAMBA) If I may say so, both sides seem to be generating a lot of FUD on this. In my own (unscientific) studies, Linux has outperformed NT, but only because Linux is operating without a processor-intensive GUI, and without other unnecessary (for a file server, anyway) support services (which are darn near impossible to remove on an NT Server). Generally, the most important things to consider on these X is faster than Y comparisons is to check the science behind the comparison. If Windows NT is faster than Linux on a two-machine network, how does that matter to you on your 100 machine LAN? If the article is hesitant to describe the methodology behind their study, and if it sounds too much like laboratory conditions, than the study is bogus. On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Itf your looking for articles look at slashdot.org's achrive. But if I'm correct(I'd head to double check ) I belive the fine print say Micosoft payed for it. Also the configuration I believed was such that they would either cripple Linux or not optimize it liek they fine tuned NT. I could be wrong though... Philip Thiem(my backsspace is current broken is please ec[Dxcuse the typoes[D[Ds )
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Adam Lazur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: ---SNIP--- Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.com) is formulating a reply about the ^ doh, make that .net -- Adam Lazur - Computer Engineering Undergrad - Lehigh University icq# 3354423 - http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4 Besides, I think Slackware sounds better than 'Microsoft,' don't you? -Patrick Volkerding
RE: NT vs Linux as web server
I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up! (ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word) Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising! Rich Came up fast for me. Also read it and saw that Microsoft sponsored the test... You want comments, look at slashdot.org - there's almost 600 of them! Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
