> I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up!
> (ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was
> kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word)
>
> Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising!
> Rich
>
Came up fast for
Adam Lazur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
---SNIP---
> Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.com) is formulating a reply about the
^ doh, make that .net
--
Adam Lazur - Computer Engineering Undergrad - Lehigh University
icq# 3354423 - http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4
"
Itf your looking for articles look at slashdot.org's achrive.
But if I'm correct(I'd head to double check ) I belive the fine print say
Micosoft
payed for it. Also the configuration I believed was such that they would either
cripple Linux or not optimize it liek they fine tuned NT. I could be
Spring 1999 Issue of linux magazine, page 42:
"LINUX OUTPERFORMED WINDOWS by as much as 250% for 12 or more client
systems." (emphasis theirs, this is regarding SAMBA)
If I may say so, both sides seem to be generating a lot of FUD on this.
In my own (unscientific) studies, Linux has outperformed
The March 22 issue of Smart Reseller (www.smartreseller.com) compared NT and
Linux
running Samba and it had Linux/Samba way ahead. So I was very surprized to see
the
test by Mindcraft.
Try the following:
www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/infopack/0,5483,387506,00.html
There are two links on that page -
I have just read the lwn comments. They have pointed out that the NT server
was setted to use only 1GB of memory, so my last example of "biased tunning"
doens't apply. Sorry for my error :-).
Any way I would be glad to know which is the maximum amount of RAM kernel 2.2
can handle.
Thank you all,
There have been a lot of discussion on this "benchmark" on slashdot
(http://www.slashdot.org). I had time to take a galnce and it seems that the
benchmark is biased. It seems they have done a very good tunning of the NT box
and a poor one for the linux box.
As a small exemple they have used a serv
note the following about 4/5 of the way through
"Mindcraft, Inc. conducted the performance tests described in this
report between March 10 and March 13, 1999. Microsoft Corporation
sponsored the testing reported herein."
-Michael
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
> Directors, of course):
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
>
> Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Li
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
> Directors, of course):
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
>
> Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as
> a File Server and 3.7 ti
Peter S Galbraith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
> Directors, of course):
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
>
> Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as
> a File Server and 3.7 times f
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 10:45:01AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
> Directors, of course):
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
>
> Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as
> a File
I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up!
(ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was
kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word)
Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising!
Rich
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> M
13 matches
Mail list logo
