__/ [ 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.
|
|
