My numbers (atleast) were a joke. The reality of it is (IMHO) that benchmarks are only useful to marketing departments because they are rarely done in an equitable manner. There are way too many differences to benchmark accross hardware platforms, and rarely does anyone tune OS parameters to make benchmarks meaningful on different OSs using the same hardware.
I use Win2K and Solaris and XP extensively. IMHO, each has an efficient kernel. All will run the following program very fast:
while(1)
Tim
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:37:42 -0700 Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you test this? or joke? :)
I would like to keep record of my server performances relative to each other too, it sounds like a cool idea
Evren
Tim McCracken wrote:
My testing confirms Alan's numbers, however he neglected to mention:
Solaris: 2.5 VMS on Alpha: 8.0 :)
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:07:58 -0400 "Alan DeKok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everybody argue about something and usually its so difficult to come to a conclusion. Microsoft says windows is good, linux people say linux is better, I say FreeBSD is best :)
NetBSD...
Microsoft always says the newer version of windows works faster and more efficiently etc. But yet they require faster cpu's and more memory in their system requirements :) When we leave the memory out, I wonder why a more efficient system require faster cpu :) there is a problem in this
equation :)
At work, we run CPU and memory intensive applications. On the same
hardward, the relative speed of our apps on the various OS's, relative
to NetBSD, are:
NetBSD: 1.0 Linux : 0.6 XP : 0.2 NT4 : >0.1
So I agree, XP is twice as good as NT4. :)
Alan DeKok.
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
