[ LUGOS ] NTHelp lista: NTHelp novice (fwd)

[Tomaz Borstnar]

At 09:46 PM 4/17/99 , DAVID DELIBASIC wrote the following message:
>drugacni luci kot do sedaj. Kjer koli slišimo besedo Linux, se 
>ponavadi omenja, kako superioren je v primerjavi z Microsoftovimi 
>sistemi. Zelo radi pa ga primerjajo predvsem z Microsoftovim 
>strežnikom Windows NT Server 4.0. Kot kaže pa je resnica drugacna. 

Cigava resnica? Starine se bodo spomnile starega vica o NULL divajsih - naj
bi obstajala dva - DEC-zdruzljiv in IBM-zdruzljiv. Skratka, hotel sem
povedati to, da se moras vedno vprasati o namenih tistega, ki ti prinasa
novice.  

>Študija pod okriljem D. H. Brown Associates pravi, da je Linux 
>primeren le za poceni in enostavne strežniške rešitve za datotecni 
>strežnik in strežnik za Internet. Njegove pomanjkljivosti se kažejo 
>predvsem na zahtevnih podrocjih, ki jih pokrivajo drugi Unix sistemi. 
>Študija navaja kot pomanjkljivost slabo podporo za delo z vecimi 
>procesorji hkrati. 

Aha, tu se pac pozna prednost dolgoletnega vlaganja veliko $$$ v te stvari.
Sun je ze leta 1988 zacel delati na Solarisu 2.x, da mu je po kakih 6 letih
uspelo narediti soliden vecprocesorski OS.

>Primerjavo med sistemoma Linux in Windows NT je izvedel tudi Fortune 
>Magazine. V njej navajajo, da naj samo "mazohisti in programerji" 
>namestijo Linux na svoj racunalnik. 
M$ je izvedel premeteno potezo - NT4+ je na zunaj ravno toliko podoben, da
si vsakdo, ki je klikal v win9x vec kot par ur, domislja, da bo pa tudi
NT4+ lahko porihtal. Kaksna napaka.

>S številkami podkrepljeno študijo je opravil Mindcraft. Iz nje je
Kako ze gre - laz, statistika, m$-placane raziskave?

>razvidno, da je Microsoftova platforma Windows NT Server 4.0 bistveno 
>hitrejša od Linuxa. Ugotovili so, da kot obicajen strežnik Windows NT 
>delujejo do dvakrat hitreje, kot Internet (Web) strežnik pa tudi do 
>3.7 krat hitreje. Navajajo tudi, da je Linux strežnike bistveno težje 
>pravilno konfigurirati in optimizirati. 
>
>Zaenkrat se torej Windows NT nimajo nicesar za bati. Še posebej s 
>prihodom nove razlicice, Windows 2000. Upajmo le, da ne bodo pri 
>Microsoftu zaspali. Glede na dosedanji razvoj, se za to ni bati... 
>
>Mindcraft študijo in rezultate najdete na spodnjem naslovu: 
>www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html 

Aha in za malce bolj crno-belo sliko se tole iz zadnjega apacheweeka
(www.apacheweek.com):


             Biased Performance Tests Challenged
             MindCraft have recently released a report comparing the
performance of Apache on Linux against IIS running on
             NT. They also tested Samba (for file sharing) on Linux against
NT's built-in file sharing. Their summary of the
             results is: Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times
faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times
             faster as a Web Server. 

             This result is significantly different to other performance
tests. For example, ZDNET's own tests showed Samba
             beating NT in The Best Windows File Server: Linux! and Samba
2.0: A License To Kill NT?, and Linux beating
             NT for web serving in Linux Is The Web Server's Choice.
Looking at the MindCraft tests in detail, it is clear that
             they compared a heavily tuned and optimised NT system against
a sub-optimal Linux configuration. It is also
             notable that the MindCraft test was paid for by Microsoft, and
that MindCraft state: "With our custom
             performance testing service, we work with you to define test
goals. Then we put together the necessary
             tools and do the testing. We report the results back to you in
a form that satisfies the test goals". 

             It is usually always possible to come up with performance
tests that show one particular application
             out-performing another, because applications can be tuned to
perform will in a test environment. It is not
             surprising that a test can be found which shows IIS having
better performance than Apache, since Apache
             concentrates on getting good performance in real world
situations. In contrast, servers optimised for tests will give
             good performance in situations where there are very quick
low-latency connections to clients. 

             Even allowing for the performance difference expected because
the tests do not simulate the real use of a server,
             there are significant flaws in the test environment that make
these results unreliable. A number of reactions to the
             report have been produced: A look at the Mindcraft report and
Mindcraft Reality Check both contain detailed
             and reasoned arguments. ZDNet has reported on the controvesy
in NT beats Linux ... maybe. 

             MindCraft performed expert tuning on their NT system to get
the best performance. They extensively configured
             NT and IIS, for example, by modifing the NT registry to get
best performance against local network clients. By
             contrast, they picked a Linux kernel version which had known
performance problems when used against
             Windows clients. They also used a RAID disk controller which
is not fully supported by Linux. In Samba, they
             turned on an option which was unnecessary, but results in
significantly lower performance. These are just some
             examples of the ways in which the tests were heavily weighted
in favour of NT. 

             It is clear from the MindCraft report that they have designed
a complete environment where NT was bound to
             win the performance tests. This cannot be described as
unbiased. If MindCraft were interested in publishing
             accurate unbiased results they should perform these tests
again, optimising the Linux, Samba and Apache
             hardware and software in they same way they optimised the IIS
and NT hardware and software in their test. 

Tomaz



>MOGOCE SE BO KOMU ZDELO ZANIMIVO ZA PREBRAT !!
Aha, ampak kot vedno - vse se mora jemati z malce rezerve.

Tomaz
----
Tomaz Borstnar <tomaz.borstnar na over.net>
"Love is the answer to the final question you ask" - Unknown