Rachel Polanskis wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Crossfire` wrote:
> > Certainly, Solaris' UFS implementation is slow compared to Linux's
> > implementation of ext2. (compare the time it takes to build a zmailer
> > hash2 directory on Solaris vs Linux. Linux takes seconds. Solaris
> > takes minutes)
>
> Not wanting to start a flame war, but isn't this a generalisation?
> You're describing one application and don't describe whether the
> build was optimised for either platform. Some code compiled with
> gcc without certain options will definitely underperform against
> an Intel. Also once again, it depends on the application.
a hash2 is a 2 directory deep bucket arrangment. The implemention for
the build is a perl script. You don't get much simpler. This is all
mkdirs. But it has been pointed out that this has been substantially
improved in 7 onwards [IIRC, the machines I ran this on were running
Sol2.6, and were not exactly in any conveniant position to be upgraded].
> > ... but Solaris does have better hardware support, and seems to hold out
> > under high sustained loads better. Also, on the big SMP Suns, you'd
> > have be insane to run anything other than Solaris at this time [I'm
> > hoping I can retract this comment in the near future].
>
> This is true, but I have heard of Linux on E5500/E6000 and the
> E10000. Solaris can't be beat for it's hardware support, though.
You'd still be crazy to be running Linux on the E5500s and larger.
Linux's SMP has improved substantially since 2.2, but I'm still willing
to bet its still behind substantially behind Solaris on the large
machines. You could probably get away with running Linux on an E450 or
E3500 (providing the hardware support exists).
--
+-================================================-+
| Crossfire | This message was brought to you |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on 100% recycled electrons |
+-================================================-+
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
