[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[linux-team] FW: [NNL] Une étude suspecte montre que NT est plus performant que Linuxe Linux
-----Original Message-----
From: redaction@linux-center.org [mailto:redaction@linux-center.org]
Sent: Wednesday 14 April 1999 03:20
To: nnl@liberte.aful.org
Subject: [NNL] Une étude suspecte montre que NT est plus performant que
Linuxe Linux
Une étude suspecte montre que NT est plus performant que Linux
[Auteur: [1]Stéfane Fermigier. Sources: [2]LinuxToday, [3]Linux Daily
News.]
Un laboratoire de test ``indépendant'' vient de publier une [4]étude
qui montre que NT Server serait 2.5 fois plus rapide que Linux 5.2
(avec noyau 2.2) comme serveur SMB et 3.5 fois plus rapide avec IIS
comme serveur Web que Linux avec Apache.
Les conditions de ce test, qui contredit l'expérience de nombreux
administrateurs systèmes, sont mises en doute dans le [5]forum de
LinuxToday qui suit l'annonce.
Voir notamment cette réponse de Jeremy Allison, Team Leader de
l'équipe [6]Samba:
It's not really suprising. They did *no* tuning on the Linux server
at all. I can well imagine these results being accurate without
modifying the bdflush and file system cache parameters on a Linux
2.2.x kernel. You get a factor of 2 performance improvement with
Linux and Samba when you set these correctly.
The server itself was a Dell PowerEdge with 4Gb of Ram, but in the
Linux section of their report it states :
"The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM"
This in itself will kill the Linux performance compared to the NT
performance. When I did the PC Week benchmark using the VA Research
box Linux was using the full amount of server RAM.
Note as well that they did the benchmark with RAID *Zero* on the
box. The PC Week/VA Research benchmark was done with RAID 5. This
makes a *big* difference :-).
There are other tricks that they used (as I've been benchmarking
with NT and Samba/Linux for a while I know quite a few of 'em). One
is to test with Windows 95/98 clients. To be completely honest
Samba/Linux doesn't serve Windows 95/98 clients as well as NT does.
However, Windows NT is *terrible* when serving NT clients.
Note they don't mention the client OS type anywhere in the document
:-). There are a few other tricks that can skew performance also
(the Samba "read raw/write raw" prameters make a difference when
used against Win9x clients for example).
At least this shows that we're starting to seriously annoy them :-)
:-). I'm quite flattered really.
References
1. mailto:linux-center@linux-center.org
2. http://www.linuxtoday.com/
3. http://lwn.net/daily/
4. http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
5. http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4932_flat.html
6. http://www.samba.org/
_______________________________________________
Nnl maillist - Nnl@liberte.aful.org
http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/nnl
---------
This message was sent by Majordomo 1.94.3. Please repport problems to
manu@rtfm.be. If you want to be deleted from the list, send a mail to
majordomo@rtfm.be with "unsubscribe linux-team" in the body.