| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft says it's faster than Linux on file serving | |
|
||
| Time: 12:40 EST/17:40 GMT | News Source: IDG | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft continued turning up the heat on Linux with its Get The Facts campaign last week. This time, Microsoft claimed that Windows 2003 was faster at file and print serving tasks than a Red Hat Linux server, based on a test performed by Veritest. The tests pitted a Windows 2003 Standard Edition server against Red Hat Linux Enterprise Linux ES 3.0 running Samba 3.0 - a software package that allows Linux/Unix servers to host Windows clients. The machines were loaded onto an HP DL380 G3 with two 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 processors, 4GB of RAM and an Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Gigabit Server Adapter. Also used was a Dell PowerEdge 500SC server configured with one 1 GHz Pentium III processor, 1GB of RAM, an onboard Intel 100M bit/sec Ethernet network adapter, and one Intel PRO/100 Fast Ethernet NIC. Microsoft said the results showed that the Windows server performed 46 per cent better than the HP-based Linux box, and 24 per cent better than the Dell Linux server. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 179 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:34:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 40 (216.68.248.200) at 6/23/2004 12:56:01 PM |
|
Here goes the the wild claims, MS paid off the testers, funded the study so they fixed the test, re-wrote the IPstack to optimize tranfer and screw with Linux, ect, ect.......
I remember the OS/2 vs NT v4 test that IBM used to run in the midwest, until the OS/2 machine had a hardware failure and it was discovered that IBM was cheating with faster drives more ram, 486DX chips on OS/2 boxes vs 486sx on NT boxes. I have seen linux guys make simular claims as this. Personal I have seen the difference, and Win2k3 is easy to use and to manage. This point is a big selling point to me. It is nice not having to re-configure the kernel, and build the application so that I can install them. |
| #2 By 6859 (206.156.242.39) at 6/23/2004 2:05:11 PM |
| Who do you believe? YOu do the test yourself and find out the truth on your hardware. I know that's a cop out of an answer, but it's the only true way to know. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 2:05:47 PM |
|
" Well, I would believe the Win2k3 would be fast because its optimized to take advantage of the processing power in todays CPU's. Remember, Microsoft sends copies of the product to CPU manufacturers such as Intel and Intel gives Microsoft early CPU's to get a head start in optimizing the OS. "
Do you live in a cave? Linux runs on more architectures than Windows and was running on 64 bit BEFORE Windows. In fact there still is only a beta version of XP 64bit. I guess sending copies of the product to CPU manufacturers is really paying off. |
| #4 By 1643 (64.73.227.129) at 6/23/2004 2:37:53 PM |
|
#5 That's not what he said now, he said it runs faster on Windows 2003 because Intel/AMD have partnerships with Microsoft. BTW Windows was running on 64bit computing for years, it just wasn't released to the public due to a) lack of mature hardware b) it had to work perfectly c) it had to run existing applications perfectly.
What architectures does Windows NEED to run on besides x386 and what are the business reasons warrant supporting these other architectures? PS - Windows runs on lots of other hardware...CE.Net. humor |
| #5 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 3:47:44 PM |
|
"That's not what he said now, he said it runs faster on Windows 2003 because Intel/AMD have partnerships with Microsoft."
A: Thats not what he said. He said it runs faster because "its optimized to take advantage of the processing powers in today's CPU's". What is is alluding to is that Linux isn't optimized on those CPU's. Thats why I pointed out that Linux IS in fact optimized on those CPU's and faster than Microsoft at that. He says microsoft has a head start in optimizing the OS because Intel sends them early versions of the new CPUs. Nevertheless I'm running a 64bit linux desktop already that isnt a BETA, while Microsoft hasnt released a 64bit non-beta version of XP. "BTW Windows was running on 64bit computing for years..... it had to work perfectly...." Not even their 32 bit OS runs perfectly. So I guess we'll be waiting forever for Windows XP 64bit if as you claim they will only release it once it runs perfectly. "What architectures does Windows NEED to run on besides x386 and what are the business reasons warrant supporting these other architectures?" I said Linux runs on morearchitectures. I didnt suggest Microsoft should run on more architectures as well because i could care less. Linux runs on those architectures because someone thought it was important enough to code. Ask them if you want to understand their business reason. "who actually certifies that the kernel will run on a super nintendo and who compiled it?" Who cares! "how about samba running on this configuration?" Who cares! "until it comes out in a redhat or suse 24x7 support configuration saying it "runs" is not worth the effort of your breath saying it or your fingers typing it. there's a big difference between "runs" "optimized" and "supported"." I brought up the point that Linux runs on many architectures and that there are already stable Linux 64bit distros to point out to the previous poster that the leg up he believes microsoft has because of partnerships with chip manufacturers is nothing but an illusion. |
| #6 By 1643 (64.73.227.129) at 6/23/2004 4:02:26 PM |
|
#9 "Thats not what he said. He said it runs faster because "its optimized to take advantage of the processing powers in today's CPU's". What is is alluding to is that Linux isn't optimized on those CPU's. Thats why I pointed out that Linux IS in fact optimized on those CPU's and faster than Microsoft at that.
He says Microsoft has a head start in optimizing the OS because Intel sends them early versions of the new CPUs. Nevertheless I'm running a 64bit Linux desktop already that isn't a BETA, while Microsoft hasn't released a 64bit non-beta version of XP." I'm not debating you can, I'm saying there is no market right now for 64bit on the desktop. When HW vendors start shipping, MS will release the product I'm sure. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's in the best interest of your users/customers. "Not even their 32 bit OS runs perfectly. So I guess we'll be waiting forever for Windows XP 64bit if as you claim they will only release it once it runs perfectly. " I'm talking about integrity of the new architecture, and testing the hell out of it. If your talking about code defects, well Microsoft isn't the only SW development team that has to face these challenges. " said Linux runs on more architectures. I didn't suggest Microsoft should run on more architectures as well because i could care less. Linux runs on those architectures because someone thought it was important enough to code. Ask them if you want to understand their business reason. " Linux can run on your toaster, big deal. What's your point in the advantage that Linux can run on more architectures? I'm asking you since you brought it up. humor |
| #7 By 1643 (64.73.227.129) at 6/23/2004 4:16:38 PM |
|
"Intel's been giving lots of attention to Linux, releasing Linux versions of their drivers, linux's getting the NX technology, and Linux can run on any platform too."
Wow, a tech vendor supporting multiple platforms...maybe they are just addressing there customer's needs and not abandoning Windows (I used stuff from previous posts for this comment). "What kernel was the machine running it based? 2.4? And why didn't Microsoft pair up win2k3 against the latest 2.6 with all its updates? Is that how they promote their products, by lying about their products? And why do they have to keep telling everybody they're so way better if the facts are supposed to speak for themselves? " They didn't lye, that was the latest stable/popular kernel that was deployed at the beginning of the study. Especially since Windows 2003 was released in 2003, so maybe we should use the stable kernel that was deployed at that time to be fair. Is it 2.4? The facts do speak for themselves, you're just blind to them. humor |
| #8 By 1643 (64.73.227.129) at 6/23/2004 4:18:09 PM |
|
#10 I LOVE YOU :)
...in a purely platonic way of course. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/23/2004 4:35:53 PM |
|
How did a discussion about Windows 2003 file sharing capabilities get into an argument about 64-bit capabilities?
Fact is Windows 2003 is a damn fine OS. |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 4:45:34 PM |
| " What's your point in the advantage that Linux can run on more architectures?" I never said there was an advantage. I say what i mean and i mean what i say. Don't read into what i MAY have meant. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 4:48:33 PM |
| "I'm saying there is no market right now for 64bit on the desktop." Oh really? Can you show me some links that back up your wild claim? |
| #12 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 4:50:03 PM |
|
"When HW vendors start shipping, MS will release the product I'm sure."
Hardware venders have been shoipping for a while already. And several Linux distros have released stable versions to run on this hardware already. |
| #13 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 4:52:07 PM |
|
"I'm talking about integrity of the new architecture, and testing the hell out of it. If your talking about code defects, well Microsoft isn't the only SW development team that has to face these challenges."
Aren't software defects part of what makes up a software's integrity? You are the one who said they are waiting for it it be "PERFECT" not me. |
| #14 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 4:58:19 PM |
|
"Well, Windows NT ran on the Alpha , PowerPC and MIPS architecture. Alpha is 64bit.
And Windows 2000 and 2003 run on Itanium - a 64 bit architecture." Does that somehow make my statement incorrect? |
| #15 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 4:59:33 PM |
| By the way :) It is my experience that samba is slower than windows native filesharing. Although i'm not sure how Linux native network filesystems compare. |
| #16 By 2332 (66.228.91.12) at 6/23/2004 5:22:26 PM |
|
I can't speak for file sharing applications, but I'm a huge fan of IIS 6 on Windows 2003 Server.
I have a friend that consulted for a company that was running 17 Linux servers with Apache. They moved from Apache to Tux and consolidated the number of servers from 17 to 14. He then rewrote their application to use ASP.NET and after about 2 months of work they were able to consolidate those 14 servers to 5 Windows 2003 Servers. I've also had experience with Windows 2003 Server setups handling over 20 million requests a day on 4 servers using NLB. Each server was getting an average of 500 requests a second, and the servers CPU wasn't peaking about 20%. I believe they were Dell Poweredge 1750's with 1.5GB of ram each and dual 2.8Ghz CPUs. So it was a < $20,000 web farm handling 20 million requests a day. That particular web farm had absolutely 0 downtime. None. |
| #17 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 7:51:21 PM |
|
"When did 64bit Linux run? Before 64bit NT? I don't think so."
Ok maybe i could have been more specific parker, but when i started to talk about 64bit i was talking about intel/amd 64bit and not whatever 64bit processor NT was running on. To be honest i'd have to research it. Can you provide some links that back up you claim that Linux didnt run on that same processor at the same time? In this case its not that i dont believe you, i'm just curious. As for microsoft having a leg up because of their relationship with hardware manufacturers, well Intel disagrees with you: Read this article: "Linux software has a headstart over Windows on the new 64bit Itanium processor jointly developed by Intel and Hewlett Packard, according to Intel." http://www.vnunet.com/analysis/1124489 It goes on to say: "A 64bit version of Windows XP is promised for 25 October, but many potential users will wait to see how robust the new operating system is." August 2001 is the date of the article. Well its June 2004, almost 3 years later and the "promised" 64bit version of Windows XP is still only in Beta. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 19:57. |
| #18 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 8:13:09 PM |
|
Parkker
"When did 64bit Linux run? Before 64bit NT? I don't think so." Hmmm lets find out http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;%5Bln%5D;LifeWin Windows NT 4.0 Server Dec Alpha Platform - General Availability Date - Not Available Windows NT 4.0 Server - General Availability Date - 29-Jul-1996 Hence we can deduce that most likely that nt4 server for dec alpha platform was released AFTER 29 July 1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux 3.0.3 (Picasso), May 1, 1996 - first release supporting DEC Alpha Looks like you were wrong. Unless you can find links for me that disprove it! |
| #19 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 8:36:14 PM |
|
here is a post questioning whether windows nt on alpha axp is even 64 bit or merely 32bit
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=windows+nt+dec+alpha+release&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5310su%249a8%40teal.csn.net&rnum=1 more about nt on alpha being a 32bit OS http://groups.google.com/groups?q=windows+nt+alpha+64bit+32bit&start=220&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=24fto0%24dcl%40vanbc.wimsey.com&rnum=224 and http://groups.google.com/groups?q=windows+nt+alpha+64bit+32bit&start=220&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=1993Oct16.171813.24071%40nntpserver.chevron.com&rnum=223 so nt did run on the alpha before linux. but was it in 64bits or 32? |
| #20 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 6/23/2004 8:37:05 PM |
|
"As #1 Said, this is all Bull Crap anyways. But....... if the test was done in an all UNIX house, we wouldn't be talking about samba anyways. Samba is a valant attempt by highly skilled/volunteer/smart programmers to reverse engineer a MS$ moving target concept. Nuff said!"
How true! |
| #21 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 6/23/2004 10:28:28 PM |
| #32 How do you know that? |
| #22 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/23/2004 11:58:02 PM |
|
#32, I got to side with #34 on this...there are too many variables to say for sure. I think they will both do a fine job at compat/stability.
humor |
| #23 By 931 (68.219.134.18) at 6/24/2004 12:48:10 AM |
|
"Microsoft says it's faster than Linux on file serving"
... duh! We've known this for 6 years. |
| #24 By 13997 (213.224.176.34) at 6/24/2004 5:19:19 AM |
|
Ok, lets clear up the Linux was on 64bit first thing...
In 1993 Microsoft Released NT, it ran on PPC, Alpha, RISC, and Intel platforms, and was followed up by their 4.0 release that also ran on these platforms in 1996. The key platform to notice is the Alpha, as the Alpha CPUs were 64bit processors, and NT and NT 4.0 was designed to take advantage of the 64bit functions of the Alpha 64bit processors, although they limited the accessible amount of memory to be fully compatible with older 1993 Alpha CPUs. Windows 2000, up until RC2, also fully ran on Alpha 64bit processors until Compaq purchased the Alpha CPU and halted the NT partnership with Microsoft, hence not wanting a NT version of the chip, as they were in the process of phasing it out. Additionally, Windows XP in 2001 released both the regular 32bit version of WindowsXP for the Intel platform and was followed up a couple of months later with a WindowsXP 64bit version that runs on the Itanium Intel 64bit processors. So, WindowsXP has been COMMERCIALLY available since 2001 for the Intel 64bit CPUs. (The AMD 64bit CPUs were not even in production yet, let alone available commercially as the Intel CPUs were – this is the one that is in beta that everyone keeps referring to.) So for anyone to state that Linux was running on 64bit processors before NT, needs to do a little fact checking and a little less "I'm a mindless Linux Fan boy/girl." As for the AMD 64bit versions of XP that are in beta, they have been available for over a year now to testers, and most people that have AMD 64bit CPUs last year were given an automatic entry into the beta process, so they too could and should have been running Windows XP 64bit for AMD for the past year as well. Now for the article, I have seen tests go either way supporting both Linux and Windows 2003 server. However, in our own production labs, we have found that in 99% of the circumstances of a real world production environment Windows 2003 server is faster. Additionally, when you add in all the features of Windows 2003 server to Linux & Samba, the performance difference increases significantly. For example: features that are native to Windows 2003 server and NTFS like compression, encryption, and shadow copies (which provide users with continuous backups of all their documents from save to save). When all these basic features of Windows 2003 are stacked onto a Linux server and Samba, Windows 2003 simply out performs the Linux server significantly. I would imagine that even in the Microsoft tests, they did not load the Linux servers to match Windows 2003 feature for feature. |
| #25 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 6/24/2004 7:24:53 AM |
|
"So for anyone to state that Linux was running on 64bit processors before NT, needs to do a little fact checking and a little less "I'm a mindless Linux Fan boy/girl.""
I provided a link to a story with a quote from Intel saying Linux was first on Itanium 64 bit above. I guess thats mindless. As for NT supporting. "Additionally, Windows XP in 2001 released both the regular 32bit version of WindowsXP for the Intel platform and was followed up a couple of months later with a WindowsXP 64bit version that runs on the Itanium Intel 64bit processors. So, WindowsXP has been COMMERCIALLY available since 2001 for the Intel 64bit CPUs." Hmm fair enough. Can you point me to some place where i can buy a license to this? Because according to Microsoft the only way to get it is by buying an Itanium system. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/howtobuy/default.mspx Ok so lets review some facts: Linux was first on Itanium 64bit according to Intel who is the Authoritative source on this. Linux was first on AMD 64bit as the Windows version for this is still in beta Windows NT was first on Alpha processors. So when i "generalized" Linux was first on 64bit i was wrong, but I already conceded to this in a post above to parrker. However, my initial point was to refute some MS fanboy's illusion that Microsoft's partnership with CPU chip manufacturer's somehow gives it a leg up, and that Windows is therefore more optimized. So if you wanna pick me appart on the fact that i wrongly generalized 64bit initially when i really meant modern 64bit such as Itanium and AMD64 bit, then go ahead, be my guest. I guess i'm just a stupid Linux fanboy due to the fact that i dont HATE linux like some of you. Nevermind the fact that i also dont HATE windows, thats besides the point right? This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 07:25. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 179 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:34:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
