Hardware comparability in benchmark comparisons
,----[ Quote ]
| Now if we were to run the same benchmark workload, and apply the same
| metrics, Linux would win easily because:
|
| 1. a Windows server application that will just barely fit in 8GB will run
| measurably more slowly in 16GB - but the paging delay encountered on Linux
| at 8GB will simply disappear.
| 2. the use of only one network card will be a performance killer for
| Windows but actually lead to a slight throughput improvement for Linux;
| 3. the Windows preference for mirroring the two internal drives is now
| effectively effectless for Linux - since almost all of the paging has
| disappeared; and,
| 4. the larger Oracle limits will have more effect on Linux than on
| Windows.
|
| Notice, however, that the configurations are still identical - and so,
| according to ShadeTree and many others, the comparison is still completely
| fair.
|
| In reality, however, it isn’t - because identical is unfair and misleading if
| the configuration markedly favors one OS over another.
|
| The fair thing to do, therefore, is to have competing teams of experts
| configure comparable base machines to reflect both the OS of their choice and
| the application - because, bottom line, Linux isn’t Windows and it doesn’t
| use identical hardware identically.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1118
"The collaborative, massively distributed development process behind the
Internet and Open Source projects is not your enemy. It is your friend, the
source of basic research that you can turn into your next generation of
products."
--Tim O’Reilly
Yesterday:
Linux, Unix more reliable than Windows
,----[ Quote ]
| The Yankee Group claims to poll about 700 users hailing from 27 different
| countries. Preliminary findings from the report are published by the
| Institute for advanced Professional Studoes, here.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/15/linux-better-windows-worse
http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html
|
|
