Re: Linux betas NT in TPC testing, running Oracle8

Phillip.Fayers_at_astro.cf.ac.uk (Phillip Fayers) writes:

>In article <7hatok$79i$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>, r.e.ballard_at_usa.net writes:
>Try looking at:
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,401970,00.html

>This is a ZDNet comparison of NT, Netware, Linux and Solaris on as near
>as possible the same hardware. In the WebBench tests Linux came in
>last, by a reasonable margin. In NetBench (file serving via samba for
>Solaris and Linux) Linux and Solaris were roughly th same, last behind
>NT and Novell. The bad Solaris score was due to an extremely slow
>file rename time, NT and Solaris were both about 4 times faster than
>Linux on file reads.

Please note that this was with Win95 clients only. With WinNT clients (and I'm quoting from the article on page :

http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2256098,00.html

here) :

"Samba running on the Penguin Computing Linux server with an NT Workstation client load dusted NT Server with 197M-bps throughput. More importantly, Samba had minimal performance degradation at higher client loads. In tests with 60 clients, Windows NT managed only 110M-bps throughput compared with 183M bps for Samba."

So it depends on whether you have a greater mix of Win95 or WinNT clients as to whether NT or Linux suits your needs better. It's not religeous, use what works in your environment.

Regards,

	Jeremy Allison,
	Samba Team.