____/ Rex Ballard on Sunday 30 December 2007 17:24 : \____
> On Dec 27, 11:17 pm, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> RexBallardwrote:
>
>> I don't need another restatement of your wacko interpretation. I want all
>> the details you claim to remember, but shown to me by a 3rd party. You're
>> extremely dishonest and unreliable.
>
> Let's see what I can find:
>
> Here's one
>
> http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
> <quote>
> "Samba 3 extends lead over Win 2003
> By Roger Howorth [14-10-2003]
> The latest Samba release shows Windows a clean pair of heels in file
> and print peformance
>
> Tests by IT Week Labs indicate that the latest version of the open-
> source Samba file and print server software has widened the
> performance gap separating it from the commercial Windows alternative.
>
> The latest benchmark results show an improvement over [Samba 2], which
> performed twice as fast as Windows 2000 Server when it was tested by
> IT Week Labs last year. Overall, it now performs 2.5 times faster than
> Windows Server 2003.
>
> In terms of scalability, the gains of upgrading to Samba 3 are even
> more striking. Last year we found that Samba could handle four times
> as many clients as Windows 2000 before performance began to drop off.
> This year we would need to upgrade our test network in order to
> identify the point where Samba performance begins to fall in earnest.
> </quote>
>
> http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html#benchapril1999
> <quote>
> Sm@rt Reseller's January 1999 article, "Linux Is The Web Server's
> Choice" said "Linux with Apache beats NT 4.0 with IIS, hands down."
> The companion article said unequivocally "The bottom line, according
> to our hands-on analysis, is that commercial Linux releases can do
> much more with far less than Windows NT Server can." ... "According to
> ZDLabs' results (see test charts), each of the commercial Linux
> releases ate NT's lunch."
> </quote>
>
> <quote>
> c't Magazin, June 1999
> c't Magazin ran very interesting benchmarks of Linux/Apache and NT/IIS
> on a quad Pentium 2 Xeon system. These tests used custom benchmark
> software written by c't (available for download). Like WebBench, this
> test used a small document tree (10,000 4KB files); unlike WebBench,
> these tests also used a second document tree (1,000,000 4KB files)
> that was too large to fit in main memory, which tests the disk
> subsystem and caching behavior of the operating system.
> See also IT Director's summary of the c't tests.
>
> Here's their graph of performance on a single-CPU system on small sets
> (10^4) and large sets (10^6) of files:
> </quote>
Don't forget the notorious 'studies' from around that time where Linux and
Windows were tweaked to make Windows appear like a better choice. This started
a riot. Always follow the money. People are not earning money merely by
conducting studies. Watch the ignition and find out who started the fire. It's
rarely the free as in free beer side.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "I think I think, therefore I think I am"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 2007-12-10 11:12 last=
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
