Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 21:53:03 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 21:11:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: [deleted] >That isn't exactly true. Microsoft has _definitely_ noticed it. They noticed >it enough to run a SMP test with a terribly mis-configured linux box, so that >they could show how much better NT performs as a file server, and a http >server, and so forth. :) I can supply some _real_ data for anyone that is >interested... Not exactly true. MS *paid* for a test, and company who tested was not able to configure Linux properly (they asked for help in a newsgroup and Red Hat, but got no answer; people at Red Hat after that asked "why you asked for help in a technical department, and not in marketing?"). PC Magazine labs repeated the test on a properly configured Linux (they called a lot of Linux people for help during configuring - I doubt average business will be get such a help; experience of the first company is more common, IMHO). Results were much better for a Linux this time, but still worse than NT. If I remember correctly, part of the problem was that SMP support in Linux kernel was in (late) beta, part was lack of drivers for the latest SCSI controllers, part was some extra locks on Apache (or Zeus?), limiting its scalability. Maybe those problems are already fixed, but IMHO Linux is still not scalable enough when you are talking about thousands of simutaneous clients (I worked at MS SQL Server group for several years, and I believe I understand those issues). I have the exact URL in my office; if there is interest I'll post it tomorrow, and this will be my last message in that off-topic thread. Eugene
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.