Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Windows 2003 66-95% faster the Linux

[Ryan Dooley <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Jerry Gamblin wrote:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9333
>
>"Whether Windows Advanced Server 2003 will be able to keep up the performance gap in other tasks is something that remains to be seen. There's one thing that's for certain, you haven't seen the end of tests like this. Microsoft has Linux in its sights and is going to do everything it can to make the open source upstart look like an also-ran."
>  
>
That article frolm VeriTest doesn't do things justice either... it 
compares Win2003 to RHAS 2.1 with a 2.4.9 derivative kernel that's what, 
a year and a half old if not more?

I think if I went back through the LKML archives, I can find issues with 
2.4.9.

I think VeriTest did a dis-service to its readers.  There is an 
enterprise 2.4.18 based kernel they should have tested with.

I'm not suprised with the disk I/O either... ext3 from back then (and in 
most cases now) is very slow (as is any journaling file system).  I'd 
have liked to see them square off against reiserfs or xfs (for that 
enterprise feel :-)

I'd like to see a 2003 vs. a 2.6 based system or heck, 2003 vs. FreeBSD 
5.1 (since it'll be out in a month or so).

My $0.02,
    Ryan

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion