Re: Windows vs Linux Performance

hpuxrac wrote:
> mccmx_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Interesting article I found which compares performance between Windows
> > and Linux on equivalent hardware.
> >
> > http://www.perftuning.com/pdf/Comparison_Oracle_Windows_Linux.pdf
> >
> > This topic has been discussed in depth here quite a lot with most
> > people saying that Linux performs better than Windows.
> >
> > But the above article seems to suggest that Windows has the edge over
> > Linux in terms of scalability.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Looks like it's based on itanium ... I started laughing and didn't read
> any further.

Server specification:
HP® ProLiant DL380 G4
Two Intel EM64T Xeon processors per server (4 logical processors with Hyperthreading), 3.4 GHz
Two 36 GB SCSI disks per server, configured as RAID 1 8 GB RAM per server
8 GB swap space/paging file per server
Two Gigabit NICs per server
One Qlogic 2340-E HBA per server
EMC CX400 Storage Array w/ 15 Disks
2 way RAC between identical servers

The results provided in the article are specific to the above configuration. If the servers had twice the amount of memory, the Linux server would not have become a victim to swap file paging, while the Windows 2003 server did not suffer the same fate with the same amount of memory. The cause of the memory difference has to do with Linux/Unix using separate processes while Windows uses threads for the same tasks.

The results were not what I expected, and may have been very different given a slightly different hardware configuration. It does, however, show that RAC works with Windows platforms, at least in test environments.

Charles Hooper
PC Support Specialist
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 09:03:48 CST