From: kevin lyda (kevin at domain suberic.net)
Date: Tue 05 Oct 1999 - 16:18:46 IST
"Breathnach, Proinnsias(Dublin)" spoke thusly:
>I have to admit that for a MS propeganda piece it was reasonably balanced.
>SAMBA isn't up to NT SMB standards (no suprise there really), and NT Admins
>do have trouble moving to *nix based systems.
ok, i've read the first bit so far. let's see what they got wrong:
they use the pcweek benchmark. i seem to remember issues there.
only supports 2 gigs of ram? really, thought sgi added that up. also,
on non-dead platforms it supports more. oh, and it only supports a
128m swap file? yes, the old swap file format only supported
128 megs BUT YOU COULD HAVE 8 (or 16?) OF THEM!!! the current format
(as of 2.1) handles up to a gig afaik. one thing to note, you can change
swap dynamically on linux, ie w/o a reboot.
smp scaling. it is improving. sgi tests showed quite a healthy
increase in performance between 2.0 and 2.2. 2.3 has even more
improvements (and they're also measured).
didn't nasdaq crash recently?
no jfs. they're correct. today. by years end this issue will annoy them
since there are three in the pipeline.
i have a lot of mail to slog through, and i've read enough of this article
to know just how spun it is. it's designed to put linux people on the
defensive and does very little to truly inform.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:40 GMT