From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Apr 15 0: 4:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dsinw.com (dsinw.com [207.149.40.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C2D151CF for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:04:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hamellr@dsinw.com) Received: (from hamellr@localhost) by dsinw.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id AAA08019; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:13 -0700 (PDT) From: rick hamell To: drkhoe@gmsnet.com Cc: Michael Slater , "'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'" Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction (Unix vs NT) In-Reply-To: <199904150654.XAA23108@gms.gmsnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > That means it would fire up potentially 290 spare threads for each > request, in effect throttling Linux's kernel... > > This puts their whole Linux/Unix know how in doubt, also, they claim Linux > only used 960megs of the 4gigs of RAM, when a kernel recompile could've fixed > the problem. I doubt if they understood the effective use of swap space > either... I've seen that exact report before... it's been critized multiple times for having a Linux server that was configured in such a way to decrease it's effectiveness... It's defiantly a propoganda piece, aimed at the uneducated. 'Look a stock NT configuration beats a Linux configuration that we crippled on purpose because Microsoft contributed a lot of money to us!' Rick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message