Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:13:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Uptimes project
http://uptimes-project.org/hosts/os_breakdown
One among several interesting statistics:
,----[ Quote ]
| Operating System Average CPU Load
| BeOS 15%
| Darwin 65%
| Embedded 99%
| FreeBSD 2%
| Linux 2%
| mIRC 0%
| OpenBSD 3%
| OpenVMS 17%
| OpenVMSClust 5%
| OS/2 14%
| Unknown 0%
| Windows 35%
`----
Linux is favoured by many criteria.
What meaningless tripe. You have no idea what else may have been running
at the time. Perhaps many of the same machines running the uptimes-project
client were also running other clients, like SETI or Folding @home, or
maybe the Windows machines were actually being used, same with the Darwin
(aka OSX) machines.
I agree, The figures posted here are completely meaningless. though not
for the reasons you state.
The problem is, those average CPU loads are for the uptime of the
machines in that category. Without the corresponding uptime (and
probably system specs) we can't work out what's good and what's bad.
So let's try comparing like with like.
Windows
System: Mone
Description: Intek Pentium III 450 Mhz 512Mb RAM HD 13 Gb IBM HD 40 Gb
Seagate
Average uptime: 19 Days 20 Hours 11 Minutes
Average CPU: 25%
Linux
System: Monster
Description: The Warhawk Air Musem's webcam server. 500Mhz cpu, 128MB
ram, and 6x 9GB hard drives.
Average uptime: 84 Days 12 Hours 24 Minutes
Average CPU: 29%
This is about as close a match as I could find, machine wise (I'm
assuming monster is a 500Mhz PIII), it still says nothing about what
exactly is running on each machine, Monster probably has to take an
image from the webcam at regular intervals and ftp it to a webpage,
other than that, no information on application software is given.
So, looks to me like to fairly similar machines have fairly similar
average CPU load regardless of the operating sytem they're running.
The only real difference seems to be average uptime, and that can
probably be attributed to the windows box needing to be rebooted after
system updates.
All in all, although it's a single sample (I can't be bothered trawling
through all the machines to find more of similar spec) it seems that the
2.6 linux kernel and Windows XP/SP2 run about the same on similar hardware.
BTW, take all this with a grain of salt, you could probably find data in
there to support any theory you'd like to put forward.
|
|
