From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 15 11:44: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from eyelab.psy.msu.edu (eyelab.psy.msu.edu [35.8.64.179]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C96158B4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from root@eyelab.psy.msu.edu) Received: from devel-eyelab (dhcp109.baker.ssc.msu.edu [35.8.194.109]) by eyelab.psy.msu.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA35131; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:41:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from root@eyelab.psy.msu.edu) Message-Id: <4.2.0.32.19990415144237.00a84aa0@eyelab.msu.edu> X-Sender: root@eyelab.msu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.32 (Beta) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:45:31 -0400 To: Amancio Hasty From: Gary Schrock Subject: Re: NT4 server 2.5 times faster than Linux Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199904151828.LAA85761@rah.star-gate.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 11:28 AM 4/15/99 -0700, Amancio Hasty wrote: >That article mentioned that getting the linux tuning parameters was scattered >all >over the place and it also mentioned that getting hold of a technical person >was difficult . Well, I'd have to argue that those points probably are somewhat valid (although I don't think it takes *too* much searching to at least come up with some optimizations for linux). However, it did clearly point out the fact that the tests were run with a highly tuned nt server and a linux kernel that wasn't really tuned at all. It also pointed out that on a platform that's on the lower end of the spectrum that linux will consistently outperform nt. Gary Schrock root@eyelab.msu.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message