From: "Boris" <borisspa...@pleasemovil.com> Subject: Phase #2 of Mindcraft tests. Linux in deep s***. Date: 1999/06/25 Message-ID: <37743005$0$219@nntp1.ba.best.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 493989976 X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 930361349 219 209.24.240.229 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Reply-To: "Boris" <XXXbo...@movil.comXXX> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Gee, Jeremy Allison. I new that he's full of s*** right away. Here are results of open Linux vs. NT tests arbitrated by PC labs. Mindcraft and Linux representatives were present during those tests. NT beats Linux by WIDE margin, especially on higher end hardware. http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015266,00.html Boris
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) Subject: Re: Phase #2 of Mindcraft tests. Linux in deep s***. Date: 1999/06/27 Message-ID: <7l3q40$rq7@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 494279294 References: <37743005$0$219@nntp1.ba.best.com> Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Jun 26 7:09:36 PM CDT 1999 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy NNTP-Posting-User: jeremy "Boris" <borisspa...@pleasemovil.com> writes: >Gee, Jeremy Allison. I new that he's full of s*** right away. >Here are results of open Linux vs. NT tests arbitrated by PC labs. >Mindcraft and Linux representatives were present during those tests. >NT beats Linux by WIDE margin, especially on higher end hardware. >http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015266,00.html Well thanks for thinking it's all my fault Boris, I'm flattered :-). Just one point I'd like to make though, before you go off on your victory dance :-). The problem revealed in this benchmark was the same one that the previous PC Week benchmark told us - that the Linux kernel TCP stack needs more multi-threading work for MP systems. However, the Samba architecture is still provably a fast one. The reason I know this can be found on this web page : http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/jumps/0,4270,401974,00.html in this comment about Samba running on Solaris x86 : "In this configuration, the powerful capabilities of Solaris 7's networking kernel were unleashed--to the tune of 360Mbps on NetBench." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this (using Samba) is a faster result (on the same PC Week network with the same clients) than the second benchmark got (338Mbps) using NT with a similar 4 processor Xeon box. Now the Solaris result was after removing the disk subsystem bottleneck on Solaris, so isn't really a fair comparison. However, it does show that given a good SMP aware TCP stack, Samba will perform at the same or better level than an in-kernel SMB implementation. The Linux TCP stack needs work, and that is indeed being done. As for the other numbers that RedHat and Penguin got, I'm suprised they are so low, but not being there this time it's difficult for me to comment on the specifics there. Cheers, Jeremy Allison, Samba Team.
From: s...@choenet.com.remove.this.com (Sang K. Choe) Subject: Re: Phase #2 of Mindcraft tests. Linux in deep s***. Date: 1999/06/27 Message-ID: <37758ae7.391207140@news>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 494376805 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <37743005$0$219@nntp1.ba.best.com> <7l3q40$rq7@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com> X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.100.107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com X-Trace: 930475814.812.77 XL4TBL80I701BD166C qube-01.us-ca.remarq.com Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:30:14 GMT Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy On 27 Jun 1999 00:09:36 GMT, jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) wrote: >"In this configuration, the powerful capabilities of Solaris 7's >networking kernel were unleashed--to the tune of 360Mbps on >NetBench." > >Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this (using Samba) >is a faster result (on the same PC Week network with >the same clients) than the second benchmark got (338Mbps) >using NT with a similar 4 processor Xeon box. > >Now the Solaris result was after removing the disk subsystem >bottleneck on Solaris, so isn't really a fair comparison. >However, it does show that given a good SMP aware TCP >stack, Samba will perform at the same or better level than >an in-kernel SMB implementation. No, what this shows is that under Solaris 7, if the disk subsystem is removed from the equation as a bottleneck, the performance goes from 206Mbps to 350Mbps. In otherwords, the result that should be used to compare Solaris 7 + Samba to NT would be 206Mbps to 338Mbps--a difference of about 132Mbps. Hardly what I would call the same nor a better level than "an in-kernel SMB implementation". Of course, if you insist on using the RAM disk version of the Solaris benchmark, you should do the same with NT (yes a RAM disk is possible under NT) to eliminate NT's disksubsystem from the equation.
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) Subject: Re: Phase #2 of Mindcraft tests. Linux in deep s***. Date: 1999/06/27 Message-ID: <7l5ouo$1aq@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 494488069 References: <37743005$0$219@nntp1.ba.best.com> <7l3q40$rq7@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com> <37758ae7.391207140@news> Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 27 1:02:00 PM CDT 1999 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy NNTP-Posting-User: jeremy s...@choenet.com.remove.this.com (Sang K. Choe) writes: >Of course, if you insist on using the RAM disk version of the Solaris >benchmark, you should do the same with NT (yes a RAM disk is possible >under NT) to eliminate NT's disksubsystem from the equation. Of course. What I am really interested in is a Solaris+Samba NetBench run without the old ufs filesystem, with something like Veritas running on Solaris. That would give more info. Only on x86 hardware of course. When run on proprietary hardware, using a proprietary UNIX (IRIX for instance) Samba will happily scale up as you add processors. The ramdisk result does show however, that the architectural design of Samba is sound (it's the same design as used in the Vantive customer service application server, which I also had a hand in, and that application scales to many thousands of users). Regards, Jeremy Allison, Samba Team.