From: ghenriksen@acm.org (Gerald Henriksen)
To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (SGI/Linux mailing list)
Subject: Re: NTools ENewsFlash -- Report: NT 3.5x Faster Than Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:24:33 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <371613c9.533557@hopper.acs.ryerson.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199904141820.LAA81406@oz.engr.sgi.com>
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>[I'm forwarding a message that bounced. Just thought some people
> may be interested. To add to what Eric wrote, another thing that
> I find strange is that they are comparing NT 3.5 rather than the
> latest NT 4.x to Linux. I also believe some of the results
> are missing crucial details, like how the two very different
> web servers were configured (e.g. standalone vs from inetd,
> ssi turned on etc.) who paid for the report, full disclosures...
> -- Ariel]
A couple of clarifications (more info can be found by checking out
Slashdot, which carried the story Tuesday and at this point has over
700 comments)
1) they used NT Server 4
2) Microsoft paid for the testing (says so on the page that reports
the results)
3) they did compile a Linux kernel as they had to update Red Hat 5.2
to the 2.2.2 kernel, and they also mention the 3 changes they made to
the kernel config. They didn't however do much to optimize Linux
4) someone even dug up the message they posted asking for help, but
they ignored at leat the response that told them to forget wasting 4
CPUs on a web server. Note that they also goofed in their plea for
help, claiming that they were using Apache 2.* which doesn't exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Henriksen gerald@rose.com
4th Year Computer Science ghenriksen@acm.org
Ryerson Polytechnic University ghenriks@scs.ryerson.ca
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ghenriksen@acm.org (Gerald Henriksen)
To: SGI/Linux mailing list <linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: NTools ENewsFlash -- Report: NT 3.5x Faster Than Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:24:33 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <371613c9.533557@hopper.acs.ryerson.ca> (raw)
Message-ID: <19990414222433.XB2TKn7RpyCHZKjAAn3BqMrc3OZJHd0GSeac6MF0a9I@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199904141820.LAA81406@oz.engr.sgi.com>
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>[I'm forwarding a message that bounced. Just thought some people
> may be interested. To add to what Eric wrote, another thing that
> I find strange is that they are comparing NT 3.5 rather than the
> latest NT 4.x to Linux. I also believe some of the results
> are missing crucial details, like how the two very different
> web servers were configured (e.g. standalone vs from inetd,
> ssi turned on etc.) who paid for the report, full disclosures...
> -- Ariel]
A couple of clarifications (more info can be found by checking out
Slashdot, which carried the story Tuesday and at this point has over
700 comments)
1) they used NT Server 4
2) Microsoft paid for the testing (says so on the page that reports
the results)
3) they did compile a Linux kernel as they had to update Red Hat 5.2
to the 2.2.2 kernel, and they also mention the 3 changes they made to
the kernel config. They didn't however do much to optimize Linux
4) someone even dug up the message they posted asking for help, but
they ignored at leat the response that told them to forget wasting 4
CPUs on a web server. Note that they also goofed in their plea for
help, claiming that they were using Apache 2.* which doesn't exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Henriksen gerald@rose.com
4th Year Computer Science ghenriksen@acm.org
Ryerson Polytechnic University ghenriks@scs.ryerson.ca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-04-14 22:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-04-14 18:20 NTools ENewsFlash -- Report: NT 3.5x Faster Than Linux Ariel Faigon
1999-04-14 18:20 ` Ariel Faigon
1999-04-14 19:24 ` Matthias Kleinschmidt
1999-04-14 20:09 ` Alan Cox
1999-04-14 22:24 ` Gerald Henriksen [this message]
1999-04-14 22:24 ` Gerald Henriksen
1999-04-15 5:06 ` Raj Mathur
1999-04-15 5:06 ` Raj Mathur
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=371613c9.533557@hopper.acs.ryerson.ca \
--to=ghenriksen@acm.org \
--cc=linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.