[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Support:
> > --------
> > Linux has the most comprehensive documentation of any operating system
> > available, commercial or free. The documentation is available on-line,
> > and with each Linux distribution.
>
> So you are including the web-lookup aspect when you say Linux has most
> comprehensive documentation? Just curious, would you make the same
> statement for the docs that ship with the OSes, comparing Linux against
> the (latest versions of!) non-Linux OSes?
>
This does not include "the web-lookup aspect". Linux is the most thoroughly
documented system, ever. All of this documentation is part of most
distributions.
It is also available on line. And, yes, I do include the source, as part of
this.
> > Scalability
> > -----------
> > As far as multi-cpu scalability, Linux currently supports up to 16 CPUs
in
> > a single system. MS claims that they support up to 32, but since they
only
> > run on Intel hardware, and there currently is no Intel-based system with
> > more than 8 CPUs in it, this is clearly marketing hype.
> >
> > There are currently Linux systems running on 16-CPU Alpha systems.
> > This is reality, not marketing.
>
> Linux works well on these SMP boxes for userland apps, but when it
> comes to measuring "multi-cpu scalability" the benchmark seems to be
> multi-threading kernel activities (e.g. I/O) and not userland
> activities (e.g. rendering that just needs CPU). Your remark seems to
> be a bit sweeping here; I don't believe Linux scales well (in the
> kernel I/O sense) on >4 CPU boxes, right?
>
There is no such benchmark, at least as a standard. It all depends on
what you are trying to do. Many uses have no such need, others do.
The recent SPEC results for web servers might serve as a good example.
As reported in Linuxworld ITworld forums):
If you haven't heard the news already, a recent test by SPEC, an industry
benchmarking organization, using their SPECWeb99 test system,
resulted in a score of 4200 simultaneous connections from a Web
client on a Linux system when compared to 1598 for a
Windows 2000 Advanced Server system.
They also reported that:
Also of note if you look at the quarterly results you will notice
something quite startling about the relative merits of Linux and
Windows 2000 SMP performance. While the Linux performance
scales quite nicely (almost doubling each time the number of
processors is doubled), the Windows 2000 scores do
not double when you double the number of processors.
Your information is not wrong, just out of date. One of the other
things mentioned there, is that when M$ hired Mindcraft to compare
the two systems, the Linux and Apache developers looked at what
Mindcraft found, and fixed the problems. So the situation was
different before M$ hired someone to help us tune our systems.
BTW, Linux is reported as running well on Sun boxes w/ two dozen
processors (per box), as well as clusters of several thousand
Linux boxes (I think Google uses Intel).
Bob Sparks
Linux guru wannabe
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
