That site basically says that MS is cheaper and faster than Linux 100% of the time. I didn't expect MS would say anything different.
Thanks anyways, Jake Johnson http://www.plutoid.com On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:23:20AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 06:11, Jake Johnson wrote: > > I need to present some performance stats and was looking for > > some good diagrams of samba vs windows. > > http://www.microsoft.com/getthefacts claims to provide this, but > somehow, I don't consider it a trusted source. ;-) > > Performance stats are always a nasty game - they are really only valid > for a particular OS/Hardware platform. That said, I do have is this > very nice story and graph from ITWeek: > > http://www.itweek.co.uk/News/1144312 > > http://www.itweek.co.uk/ITWeek/itw_graph_1144289.jsp > > "Overall, it now performs 2.5 times faster than Windows Server 2003." > > However, most people don't run Samba for graph-able performance > changes. They run Samba because that's what fits their choice of > platforms, their need for stability, and immense flexibility. The > performance boost is a very nice byproduct. ;-) > > Andrew Bartlett > > -- > Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net -- Thanks, Jake Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.plutoid.com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba