Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ NoNamer ] on Wednesday 12 July 2006 05:09 \__
>
> > Jim Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 Jul 2006 19:10:53 -0700,
> >> NoNamer <grug2005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Some data points where the Windows stacks generally outperform (by a
> >> > large margin) Linux stacks.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1983366,00.asp
> >> >
> >> > Interesting read indeed.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> it would be an interesting read if I could get a copy of the apache and
> >> mysql configs for Linux, as it is, all we have are bits of the data,
> >> without the meat.
> >
> > They specifically noted that for LAMP and Windows .Net stack that both
> > configurations were default. No special tweaking for either platform.
> > They also justified their position in testing this way.
> >
> >> Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
>
> Sorry to be re-using an answer (hope you don't mind), but in an earlier
> thread discussing this benchmark I said:
>
> ,----
> | They also neglect stability, which affect TCO, unlike performance in
> | isolation (as skeptic as I may be about it as a whole[1])...
> |
> | ...If you ask me, the article is attempting to be cocky to both sides,
> | avoiding any flames and lost readership.
> |
> | [1] Which distribution used? What specifications (it's a black art of
> | mis/fit to system requirements)? X enabled/running? Conclusion: not enough
> | information. Most benchmarks are inconclusive, biased and subjected to one
> | point in time (specification 'demography').
> `----
>
> If they made the /data/ available, as well as the methods, one could try to
> reproduce the results. In my opinion, this is a "quick 'facts'"-style
> article, which is not scientific.
I think it's one of the best articles yet from a usual Linux biased
media source.
It shows out-of-the-box configurations of typical scenarios.
Yes, both platforms could have been more optimized had there been
experts there, but as the article points out, most shops use the
default configurations.
And it clearly shows that Windows Server can keep up or beat Linux in
most configurations. Even those that run OSS applications seems to
highly favor Windows Server 2003 R2 over Linux - quite surprising find
IMO.
|
|
