Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:07:19 +0000 From: Adam Nealis <adamn@csl.com> To: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> Cc: notme <notme@lvdi.net>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Linux Vs. NT Vs. FreeBSD Message-ID: <372980D7.AD3A37B5@csl.com> References: <199904300405.XAA01014@nospam.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Kelly wrote: > > notme writes: [snip] > > which stated that Linux lost to NT in a test on a Quad > > processor Dell server and the new test between the > > two. [snip] > Every other attempt to quantify the performance of a free Unix web > server, the FreeBSD and Linux boxes trounced NT on the same CPU. I take it by this you mean single CPU, relatively low-spec stuff, no? It hasx to be admitted that while Linux/FreeBSD will run happily on low-end stuff that NT won't, as you go up the scales the differences converge and, in the case of a quad-CPU, NT might have an edge of few % - but that's only in terms of performance - I suppose if you factor in stability in terms of time between reboots, that small edge probably goes away. > As to Linux vs. FreeBSD, its generally ceeded that FreeBSD behaves > better than Linux under heavy loads. I agree with this, but I'm not aware of any comparitive data between Linux 2.2.X and 'BSD 3.X - I have some "empirical" data: (a colleague and RedHat fan) dropped the Linux 2.2.something kernel onto his Mandrake installation and claimed it was much better then 2.0.34. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?372980D7.AD3A37B5>