From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 15 2:49:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from sussie.interbizz.se (ns.datadesign.se [194.23.109.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC2C14DC6 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:49:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Joachim.Isaksson@ibfs.com) Received: from tequila (dhcp140.ibfs.com [193.45.188.140]) by sussie.interbizz.se (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA19745; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:47:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004201be8724$e7b89a40$8cbc2dc1@ibfs.com> From: "Joachim Isaksson" To: "Luoqi Chen" , "Stephen McKay" Cc: , References: <3714EFA7.239DEBF5@chen.ml.org> <199904150921.TAA28780@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> Subject: Re: NT4 server 2.5 times faster than Linux Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:46:58 +0200 Organization: Interbizz Financial Systems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> 2) "The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM" > > The box had 4GB of RAM, but Linux got to use less than 1GB. Poor Linux. > This was such a fair test! :-( Do we recall a previous test where our > favourite OS used only a portion of the total RAM? Well, does Linux really limit itself to 960MB of RAM as they claim? If so, I'd say it's not an unfair test to not limit NT to the same low memory use. If on the other hand they limited Linux to 960MB of RAM by not doing proper tuning, that's another matter... Guess I better go read up on the Linux people's opinion on the testing... /me To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message