Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-20,: Re: Stupid MS challenge

# Re: Stupid MS challenge

Gregory Maxwell (linker@z.ml.org)
Tue, 18 May 1999 22:24:20 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Horst von Brand: "2.3.3 doesn't export blk_ioctl"
- Previous message: Russell Coker: "ATI FB driver"

On 17 May 1999, Paul Flinders wrote:

> I must admit that neither of these are my experience - I'm stuck with
> NT at work but it quite happily lets me sit running VC 6, Emacs,
> Rational Rose (what a memory hog!), SQL server and a host of also rans
> and I most certainty do not need to reboot every 90 mins, or even
> every day - I treat my machine to a reboot every month or so to clear
> memory leaks (if installing some software or patch didn't need a
> reboot, although that _is_ depressingly often) but otherwise it seems
> basically robust. HP is willing to guarentee 99.9% availability for NT
> on it's PC hardware - that's just 8 hours downtime a year. Mind you
> it's prepared to guarentee 99.999% availability for HP-UX (to get
> things in context).

I'll argee with alot of this here.. NT is suprisingly stable considering
95/98.. If handled well, given lots of hardware, and kept under a modest
load. It will run quite a long time, unless you are constantly bitten by
reoccuring bug (which there are many, but careful hardware configs will
avoide). After a while memory leaks will begin to slow it down, making it
fruitful to reboot.

Actually, 99.9 is alost 9hours a year.. About 11minutes a week.. Again,
this is with a carefully selected hardware platform. I imagine that if you
install any weird hardware or software you blow the 99.9% (it would be
VERY easy to make a SP4 upgrade into a 9hour nightmare if you install the
'wrong' app.).

I imagine that if you did ANY of mindcraft's performance reg tweaks (or
expirmental, unsupported drivers) you would have no chance at that kind of
stability. Which is why I suggested the long test..

A)Speed
B)Stability
C)Bloat

Pick two. MS has already picked C, and once picked it's hard to get rid
of.. So they can be roughly stable but not super fast..

These benchmarks are bogus anyways.. Performance only matters to the point
that the job gets done.. After that it's all fluff..

No real website would run a single mega webserver like that...

I'd feel quite secure in offering $1,000 to the person who's company has
been running a webserver serving off more then 2,200 static web hits/s on
a single server..

That benchmark is completely unrealistic.

What matters: Stability, Reasonable performance, managibility, and cost
effectiveness.

I believe that Linux beats NT hands down on each one of these criteria,
for my purposes (and lots of other people too!)

Stability: Although NT is reasonably stable on vendor provided hardware,
it can become very unstable after a simple app install or with oddball
hardware. Frequent memory leaks and config change reboots shortens uptime
even more.. I've also found NT's stability to be at it's worst under heavy
load.

Reasonable performance: On highend hardware both platforms meet levels of
reasonable performance. Webserving should be handled by multiple
computers.. The real difference comes on lowerend configs where Linux runs
circles around NT.

Managibility: Although NT point/click *appears* more manageable (and IS
for the uninitiated), Linux has extream advantages when something goes
wrong. Consider you have an app crashing, with typical NT enviroment you
invoke the black art of reinstalls and reboots to solve the problem. With
Linux, a medium to advanced sysadm uses source code, FAQ/message archives,
strace and other debuggers, and communicates with authors to actually
SOLVE the problem. In this way Linux is more managable, but you do have to
have a REAL sysadm, and not some overpaid button pusher. (note: real
sysadms arn't nessassarly more expensive, many actually enjoy their job
and will work for lower pay in exchange for a good enviroment)

Cost effectiveness: When combined with Linuxes lower price, better
managebility, and better low-end performance. Linux is quite a bit more
cost effictive.

> I've noticed a distinct tandancy to knock NT in the Linux community -
> whilst I'm no fan - my home machine (64Mb, 200Mhz Pentium MMX) is a
> fine, powerful development platform with Linux and a depressingly
> underpowered, memory short simpleton with NT 5/W2k beta 2 but just
> repeating the NT is slow and needs rebooting lots is ignoring the fact
> that it does a prefectly good job for many people most of the time.

Exactly
> If Linux is really to gain "world domination" making sure that NT's
> strengths are Linux's strengths as well as making sure that NT's
> weaknesses are Linux's strengths is required.

Wow. Very good statement.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Horst von Brand: "2.3.3 doesn't export blk_ioctl"
- Previous message: Russell Coker: "ATI FB driver"