Re: Windows vs Linux Performance

EscVector wrote:
>
> Performance is not linear. Permutations compound dissimilarities.
> What works in one environment may not work in another. Windows may
> perform better in one instance and not in another. Each environment is
> as unique as there are opinions on this board. The choice should boil
> down to which one adds the most benefit to the company.
>
> Think of this, I could pay a Nascar team to keep a fancy Nascar running
> and track ready. If all I do is drive the car to work, I've wasted
> lots of money and have used none of this performance. Is the Nascar
> better than my car? For speed, yes, for practicality, no. Is Windows
> faster, better, easier to use than Linux. Sometimes yes and sometimes
> no. But this is the wrong question.
>
> Can Linux out perform Windows. Is Linux a better more efficient
> system? Probably yes. But what's the point if it costs more and the
> use is doesn't justify the means? The basis should should be cost and
> cost is relative to each situation.
>
> Notice the "Report Query Test", figure 4 (p13-14). 32bit outperforms
> 64bit. Unexpected? It should not be. Performance is not necessarily
> linear. The paper ends with the assumption that the generic Windows
> driver is at fault and had a vendor provided 64 bit storage driver been
> available, it would have bested 32 bit. This may be the case, but they
> certainly did not prove that out. At a minimum, the xplans should be
> included if this assumption is to be made. If the plans are exactly
> the same, then it I'd buy the driver guess, but without that info, who
> knows? Was cpu costing on?
>
> So factoring in drivers, users, data, statistics, memory settings, init
> settings, session settings, storage setup, network speed, admin
> skill-set and moon phase, we come up with an enormous variety of
> possible situations that all work against any kind of standardization
> that can be generalized across the board. There is danger behind the
> reasoning that one system is better than the other. It is based on the
> same reasoning that says a Nascar is faster than a Mini. It is certain
> that it is, but it makes for a very expensive commute and does not
> factor cost into the equation.

Umm that's a lot of words to accompany what looks to be a hack job of an article.

The problems behind what was written are obvious. The faces and rod stewart captured it well in the old album "A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse"! Received on Tue Jan 23 2007 - 10:38:10 CST