Our nt/w98 lan ran a lot faster with professional engineers coming in to install and maintain it than my pathetic amateurish attempts with 8.1 and NIS and NFS. But we make do. And it costs a little less. In a school on a tight budget, quantity and quality uptime is much more important than engineering. By 9.1 SuSE lan's will be just as fast with amateurs installing
Looks like you're doing the same mistake (as the originator of initial posting), in subjective judgement of the OS speed - Linux vs. Windows. How do you measure NT/W98 vs. Linux linux speed across the LAN? Have you ran any comparative scalability vs. number of connection tests on these two systems? Can you provide any data or numbers. If not, this is just a plain speculations. We have ran comparative scalability tests on WinXP Server vs. SuSE 8.1 server. Here is the outcome in short: WinXP "server" started to faze out just after 30 simultaneous client connections/sec, completely stumbled at 85 and crashed at 93. We repeated the test at 150 conn/sec and this time WinXP was displaying infamous BSOD. Linux server sustained 127 simultaneous client connection/sec without noticeable lost in performance and started to show 15% degraded performance after 278 connections/sec. We cranked up number of connection/sec up to 400 and the system was running about 50% slower but rock stable. The test were done on absolutely identical hardware. This demonstration was enough to convince our management to make Linux our company wide standard for the servers and engineering workstations. Alex ------------------- them. Leaving
many without jobs.
Steve. Sierra Bernia School, Alfaz del Pi, Alicante 7:31pm up 117 days, 9:46, 8 users, load average: 0.81, 0.70, 0.52
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com