| 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 |
 |
Samba runs rings around Win2000 | |
|
||
| Time: 09:33 EST/14:33 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The Samba open source file and print server outperforms Windows 2000 by a wide marginWith 10 weeks to go before firms must sign up to Microsoft's Software Assurance licensing scheme or pay full price for upgrades, new tests suggest open-source Samba software may offer a viable alternative to upgrading file servers to Windows 2000. Results published this week in IT Week's sister publication PC Magazine show that the latest Samba software now surpasses the performance of Windows 2000 by about 100 percent under benchmark tests. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:28:40 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 4/23/2002 10:48:36 AM |
|
I had NT servers with 350+ days uptime that I never had to mess with.
I had to throw out Samba/Linux because chumpy Linux couldn't handle files larger than 2GB (of which I had many). "Linux/Samba can handle 4 times as many clients as Windows 2000..." Riiiigggghhhttt... that's with a perfectly tweaked/configured Linux/Samba box running with no authentication vs a Win2K box with no tweaks or configuration running Kerberos over a 10Mb link. Sure. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/23/2002 11:03:58 AM |
|
I'm assuming they are talking about this article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,a=16554,00.asp The benchmarks they ran are not conclusive. While I won't claim there is bias, they certainly spent a greatly deal more effort configuring the tests to work with Linux than Win2k. BTW, I've frequently found ZDNet's benchmarks to be misconfigured and unrepeatable. A few years ago they did IIS versus Apache. The test configuration turned out to not be about the web server performance, but rather the I/O subsystem performance. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 11:05. |
| #3 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/23/2002 11:30:02 AM |
| Yeah with a 1GB partition for file serving. Lets see what it does with a bigger partition say at least 80 GB with several thousand files and application serving. With over 70 clients connected to it. This test is BS, who uses only a GB partition and small files. I want transfer of large graphics and applications whose data sits on the server for everyone to see. And how about security permissions? |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/23/2002 1:10:55 PM |
|
Hmmm... these benchmarks don't provide a great deal of information, but just going on what's provided, that's pretty impressive.
As soon as they get Active Directory support, I'll start being impressed. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/23/2002 1:37:21 PM |
|
#4 - Recompiling the kernel can introduce all sorts of variables. While they mention that they did this to unload modules, they do not give specifics as to what other settings they may have changed even inadvertantly. This was a mistake, they should have left it alone, or at least ran a test showing how the changes made impacted the test.
They do not give specific details on the configuration of the machines, but on the Dell 4100 the results show the Samba server putting out far more network traffic than a single 100baseT connection is capable of. If you are talking about dual network cards, or even Gigabit, the configuration of the network settings can play a major role. Above all, they break the fundamental rule of testing... there is no documentation detailing their exact configuration, the test scenarios, etc. so there is no way to reproduce the tests. I don't care whether or not Samba outperforms Win2k, but I do care when the tests are not executed properly and give the appearance of bias. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/23/2002 3:56:44 PM |
|
#9 - If recompiling the kernel makes no difference, they shouldn't have done it. I suspect that it did make a difference, which is why they did it.
As far as Samba. I think it's a nice solution for a company which already has Unix solutions deployed and thus has the knowledge to maintain the system. Otherwise, it really isn't cost effective because of the increased maintenance costs, certainly not for a small business. And it's lacking manageability features for a larger business, as you said. |
| #7 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/23/2002 4:23:26 PM |
|
Well after looking at it again, I would like to know how the Linux Box achieved a higher than 100Mbs throughput on the NIC. And also any Admin worth his salt would not use IDE as the HD Controller or HD's on a server. Show me the results with SCSI in a RAID 5 config like I use and like my whole company uses for all Servers. Show me results that reflect a 100 Base T network and show me the specs of the Servers plus what was cut out of the kernel in the recompile as well as the Services running on the 2K box. Then I may look into it more. This was nothing more than " look at the numbers we got from 2K and Samba, but we won't tell you what we did to get them ". It is totalt BS.
And #4 out of my whole comment you pick the last little sentence to look at? Is that because you could not comment on the rest of it? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:28:40 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
