I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up!
(ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was
kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word)
Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising!
Rich
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
My
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 10:45:01AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
Directors, of course):
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as
a File
Peter S Galbraith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
Directors, of course):
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as
a File Server and 3.7 times faster
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
Directors, of course):
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as
a File Server and 3.7 times
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of
Directors, of course):
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux
note the following about 4/5 of the way through
Mindcraft, Inc. conducted the performance tests described in this
report between March 10 and March 13, 1999. Microsoft Corporation
sponsored the testing reported herein.
-Michael
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter
There have been a lot of discussion on this benchmark on slashdot
(http://www.slashdot.org). I had time to take a galnce and it seems that the
benchmark is biased. It seems they have done a very good tunning of the NT box
and a poor one for the linux box.
As a small exemple they have used a
I have just read the lwn comments. They have pointed out that the NT server
was setted to use only 1GB of memory, so my last example of biased tunning
doens't apply. Sorry for my error :-).
Any way I would be glad to know which is the maximum amount of RAM kernel 2.2
can handle.
Thank you all,
The March 22 issue of Smart Reseller (www.smartreseller.com) compared NT and
Linux
running Samba and it had Linux/Samba way ahead. So I was very surprized to see
the
test by Mindcraft.
Try the following:
www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/infopack/0,5483,387506,00.html
There are two links on that page
Spring 1999 Issue of linux magazine, page 42:
LINUX OUTPERFORMED WINDOWS by as much as 250% for 12 or more client
systems. (emphasis theirs, this is regarding SAMBA)
If I may say so, both sides seem to be generating a lot of FUD on this.
In my own (unscientific) studies, Linux has outperformed
Itf your looking for articles look at slashdot.org's achrive.
But if I'm correct(I'd head to double check ) I belive the fine print say
Micosoft
payed for it. Also the configuration I believed was such that they would either
cripple Linux or not optimize it liek they fine tuned NT. I could be
Adam Lazur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
---SNIP---
Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.com) is formulating a reply about the
^ doh, make that .net
--
Adam Lazur - Computer Engineering Undergrad - Lehigh University
icq# 3354423 - http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4
I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up!
(ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was
kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word)
Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising!
Rich
Came up fast for me.
El miércoles 07 de abril de 1999 a la(s) 11:23:30 +0100, Jose Marin contaba:
comment
No mandes HTML a la lista, please, que queda feo.
/comment
El mutt soporta MIME y al ver el attachment me llamó al lynx
automáticamente. Aunque no deja de ser una pesadez.
Podrias explicar
Han Solo wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:58:17PM +0200, Ramiro
Alba wrote:
>
> Tenemos Windows NT 4.0 instalado en una particin del primer
disco y en
> otra(s)
> particiones del mismo disco instalamos Debian y onfiguramos Lilo
para
> que arranque de los 2 sistemas. El arranque de Linux ningn
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Manuel Batista Dominguez wrote:
nbsp; Esa solucioacute;n es perfectamente vaacute;lida, pero creo que
pierdes la funcionalidad del Bcargador LILO./B
BRBnbsp;/B Copia el contenido de lo siguiente y ajustalo a tus
necesidades,
lo importante es que la particioacute;n de
Hola que tal.
Veo que el tema se
animo.
Lo primero que yo intente fue
instalar primero NT y despues LINUX pero al poner LILO en el MBR, NT ya no puede
arrancar ya que necesita su propio MBR, es decir el boot loader de NT, me temo
que NT usa el boot loader para algo o es una nueva conia
On mié, abr 07, 1999 at 11:23:30 +0100, Jose Marin wrote:
Supongo que lo mejor seria poner LILO en el MBR (i.e., boot=/dev/hda), y
Si
tenerlo asi de master bootloader. Qué creeis? Pero, en ese caso, sabe
alguien como guardar el MBR original (el bootloader de NT), por si
interesa dejarlo como
El Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:58:17PM +0200, Ramiro Alba dijo:
José Enrique Álvarez Martín wrote:
[Problemas de Arranque Linux+WinNT]
Ya vieron los HOWTO relevantes.
--
Ugo Enrico Albarello López de Mesa| POWERED BY | www.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | DEBIAN GNU/LINUX 2.0 |
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:58:17PM +0200, Ramiro Alba wrote:
Tenemos Windows NT 4.0 instalado en una partición del primer disco y en
otra(s)
particiones del mismo disco instalamos Debian y onfiguramos Lilo para
que arranque de los 2 sistemas. El arranque de Linux ningún problema
pero el de
José Enrique Álvarez Martín wrote:
Hola a todos. Instale Windows NT 4.0 Server en mi pc, en una
particion ntfs.Mas tarde instale LINUX en otro disco duro, al
instalar LILO, me machaco el MBR de NT pero lo peor es que no puedo
arrancar NT desde LILO. Por favor, alguien
Jos Enrique lvarez Martn wrote:
Hola a todos.
Instale Windows NT 4.0 Server en mi pc, en una particion ntfs.
Mas tarde instale LINUX en otro disco duro, al instalar LILO, me machaco
el MBR de NT pero lo peor es que no puedo arrancar NT desde LILO.
Por favor, alguien me puede ayudar.
Ver
Thanks Bob McGowan for your very informative reply. I gather that
1. Software raid is OK if problem is I-O bound, i.e.,
CPU would normally be idle waiting for I-O.
2. If we have multiple subsystems, we increase the
the I-O bandwidth, and now the CPU may not
be keep
Hi, King, my comments follow your questions, below.
I hope this helps.
Bob
King Lee asks:
Thanks Bob McGowan for your very informative reply. I gather that
1. Software raid is OK if problem is I-O bound, i.e.,
CPU would normally be idle waiting for I-O.
I would agree with this
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Michele Comitini wrote:
One great advantage is that you can combine any kind of partitions form
different devices (even a combination of partitions from a mix of IDE
or SCISI hard-disks!) and have different personalities (i.e. RAID-5 for
filesystem partitions, RAID-0 for
-Original Message-
From: King Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 11:29 PM
To: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
Cc: recipient list not shown; @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT and Linux
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra wrote:
King Lee wrote:
1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge
about software raid. How good is it?
2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5
Just (re)found it!
Hello!
I was surprised to learn that the 2.2 kernel supports software raid
and that the software raid was as fast as hardware raid 5.
Raid 5 does error correction and even if one of the disks
die data can be recovered and the system continue.
The article from www.osnews.com did say that
-Original Message-
From: King Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:29 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: NT and Linux
Hello,
I got into a discussion with a system administrator of
a website. The system administrator wishes to use
NT because it
King Lee wrote:
1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge
about software raid. How good is it?
2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5
Just (re)found it!
http://www.osnews.com./features/04.98/raid.html
Very good reading indeed! Enjoy and tell us what
King Lee wrote:
1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge
about software raid. How good is it?
Know nothing about NT. If you look for information on Linux RAID (it's
in the Internet, I've read it, can't remember where), it's said that
Linux s/w RAID was in fact
-Original Message-
From: King Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 12:29 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Cc: recipient list not shown; @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NT and Linux
Hello,
I got into a discussion with a system administrator of
a
Jens B. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] NT make simple
things simpler. In the process, by cramming everything into a neat
little GUI it makes complex things difficult or impossible.
Amen, brother! Truer words were never spoken.
Well, maybe now and then, but not often. :)
--
Edgar
33 matches
Mail list logo
