To a very large extent, the capability of a platform is measurable by the skill of the team administering it.
If core competencies lie in Windows OS then I would wager heavily the platform will outperform a similar Linux OS installation in the long haul. All things being equal, it’s really hard to argue with Linux. But nothing is ever equal. On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 1/21/2014 2:17 AM, onetwothree wrote: >> Does Solr on a Linux Os has a better memory management than a Windows Os, or >> can you neglect this comparison? > > As Toke said, this is indeed debatable. > > I personally believe that Linux is better at almost everything, but if > you're running a recent 64-bit Windows Server OS, you may not actually > see a lot of difference. Microsoft has VERY talented people working for > them, and even though I won't use it for most server applications, > Windows is a very capable platform. > > If you ignore personal bias and proceed with the idea that Linux and > Windows are approximately equal in terms of real-world performance, then > one factor that might be critical is price. Linux can be installed for > zero cost, a standalone bare metal Windows Server license is several > hundred dollars, sometimes more. > > Thanks, > Shawn >
