On Tuesday 13 May 2003 16:36, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Quoting:
Is Windows 2003 Server really faster than Linux/Samba?
Here comes Windows 2003 Server! And it's faster than Linux, because Microsoft cheated with the benchmarks! May 9, 2003
Article summary:
Microsoft claims Windows 2003 Server is twice as fast as Linux, at least when it's used for file serving. I spoke to Jeremy Allison, head of the Samba team, who provided a few insights into the test configurations that don't leap out at the reader because they are hidden away in appendixes to the benchmark document. Allison feels this, in itself, is substantially responsible for the outcome. (1,000 words)
What I interpreted from that is something that I have been saying for a long time and that is Windows is better suited for SOHOs, mom-n-pop shops, than Linux. From the user perspective it is pretty obvious in that most people are used to the Window GUI and the switch to KDE or Gnome is an extra burden that costs any company and resources. Now we have the server perspective. It seems that right out of the box Windows is faster than Linux. Isn't that what the mon-n-pop shops want? They want something they can quickly install and not spend the time tweaking. AFAIK the ext3fs is default for many distributions and not XFS. So the out of the box (i.e. the default) Linux has some weaknesses. In a company with it's own IT department, where they know about things like this (or should know), the can make the neessary changes to the default (even without "tweaking"). Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.