May 13th, 2003 04:33 AM
Is Windows 2003 Server really faster than Linux/Samba?
Microsoft claims Windows 2003 Server is twice as fast as Linux, at least when it's used for file serving. I spoke to Jeremy Allison, head of the Samba team, who provided a few insights into the test configurations that don't leap out at the reader because they are hidden away in appendixes to the benchmark document. Allison feels this, in itself, is substantially responsible for the outcome
May 13th, 2003 05:13 AM
I can't claim if it's that much faster than Linux, but I can attest that it is significantly faster than Windows 2000 (especially in specific operations). I have quite a bit of *nix experience, though not very much with Samba, but I have always heard that Samba is quite a bit slower in a Windows environment than a dedicated Windows 2000/2003 server. I personally believe, if you're going to be running a pure Windows network, it's best to handle certain operations with a Windows server (such as user management via AD, which has been *drastically* improved in Windows 2003, by the way). I admit that most other server operations (such as web serving, mail servering, etc.) is definately much more efficient as well as secure on a *nix system, as long as it's configured properly. Just my opinion.