🚀 go-pugleaf

Beat Seeliger wrote:
> 
> Die Firma Mindcraft hat einen Vergleich zwischen einem NT und einem
> Linux Webserver gemacht. Dabei kommt raus, dass der NT Fileserver 2.5
> mal schneller ist, als der Linux Sambaserver (hab ich vor etwa einem
> Monat was ganz anderes gelesen) oder dass der Linux Apache einem Windows
> NT Webserver 3.5 mal langsamer hintendreinhinkt. Meine Meinung:Da kann
> doch was nicht stimmen... Die ganze Wahrheit(?):
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html

Es gibt bereits mehrere Stellungsnahmen der Samba Programmierer:
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-04/lw-04-mindcraft.html?04-28

Und hier was in der apache-week dazu stand:
   [17]MindCraft have recently released a [18]report comparing the
   performance of Apache on Linux against IIS running on NT. They
also
   tested Samba (for file sharing) on Linux against NT's built-in
file
   sharing. Their summary of the results is: Microsoft Windows NT
Server
   4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times
   faster as a Web Server.
   
   This result is significantly different to other performance
tests. For
   example, ZDNET's own tests showed Samba beating NT in [19]The
Best
   Windows File Server: Linux! and [20]Samba 2.0: A License To Kill
NT?,
   and Linux beating NT for web serving in [21]Linux Is The Web
Server's
   Choice. Looking at the MindCraft tests in detail, it is clear
that
   they compared a heavily tuned and optimised NT system against a
   sub-optimal Linux configuration. It is also notable that the
MindCraft
   test was paid for by Microsoft, and that MindCraft state: "With
our
   custom performance testing service, we work with you to define
test
   goals. Then we put together the necessary tools and do the
testing. We
   report the results back to you in a form that satisfies the test
   goals".
   
   It is usually always possible to come up with performance tests
that
   show one particular application out-performing another, because
   applications can be tuned to perform will in a test environment.
It is
   not surprising that a test can be found which shows IIS having
better
   performance than Apache, since Apache concentrates on getting
good
   performance in real world situations. In contrast, servers
optimised
   for tests will give good performance in situations where there
are
   very quick low-latency connections to clients.
   
   Even allowing for the performance difference expected because the
   tests do not simulate the real use of a server, there are
significant
   flaws in the test environment that make these results unreliable.
A
   number of reactions to the report have been produced: [22]A look
at
   the Mindcraft report and [23]Mindcraft Reality Check both contain
   detailed and reasoned arguments. ZDNet has reported on the
controvesy
   in [24]NT beats Linux ... maybe.
   
   MindCraft performed expert tuning on their NT system to get the
best
   performance. They extensively configured NT and IIS, for example,
by
   modifing the NT registry to get best performance against local
network
   clients. By contrast, they picked a Linux kernel version which
had
   known performance problems when used against Windows clients.
They
   also used a RAID disk controller which is not fully supported by
   Linux. In Samba, they turned on an option which was unnecessary,
but
   results in significantly lower performance. These are just some
   examples of the ways in which the tests were heavily weighted in
   favour of NT.
   
   It is clear from the MindCraft report that they have designed a
   complete environment where NT was bound to win the performance
tests.
   This cannot be described as unbiased. If MindCraft were
interested in
   publishing accurate unbiased results they should perform these
tests
   again, optimising the Linux, Samba and Apache hardware and
software in
   they same way they optimised the IIS and NT hardware and software
in
   their test.



-- 
"Those are my principles! And if you don't like them... well, I have
others..."
	-- Groucho Marx