Windows / Unix server question
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Windows / Unix server question

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429

    Windows / Unix server question

    This is not another post to start a bashing contest between Windows and Linux adepts, but something from one of my classes... I'm detecting some BS here, but I can't find anything "unbiased" to prove it... Anyone have any opinions?

    Here's the post in question:


    While testing Operating Systems for the Justice Department, I worked with engineer's from Microsoft, Data General, BSD, and Sun.

    White papers showed that Windows only emulates multitasking, and that is the reason that they only have a 10% share of the server market. The majority of servers are Unix based.(even Microsoft has Unix Servers)

    For performance we tested how many web pages each could handle per minute...Windows choked at 50,000 hits per minute, and Unix could handle in access of over 1 Million hits per minute.

    People much smarter that me agreed that this was a multitasking issue.
    I don't buy the "10% share of the server market" for Windows... afaik, it's much higher. For web servers, it's somewhere around 20% according to Netcraft. Makes me wonder how old his "research" is.
    And 1 million hits per minute? In a test? How? And what server?...
    Anyone care to debunk this? Or confirm so I can go give him some credit?

  2. #2
    AO BOFH: Luser Abuser BModeratorFH gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    There could be some truth in this mess of information here:

    Windows was designed not to be multi user and wasn't designed with security in mind. (Click cancel, PWNED).

    NT was originally not designed for networks.... well sort of. Nt wasn't internet ready, it had to me made so. Get the oldest NT you have anywhere and try getting online.

    So by this you get, Windows 9X and NT lines at first were not designed for the net.

    Unix.... Heh, BSD is what made the internet, and TCP/IP. Linux is a child of the net.

    The first Unix was never designed for security. At the time it wasn't needed.

    If you think how Microsoft uses the NT line for 2000, XP, 2003, and Even next generation, it becomes a problem if they are just being made for use on a net.

    Windows 2000 went a step ahead, it was in fact design for networks. XP was too. But they were still based on NT.

    So there could be truth in some of this. Microsoft has innovated virii though. The first Virii were on Unix machines, but Microsoft really took the torch and ran with it here. Unix virii were really just pranks anyway, but they count. All in all, I doubt many people here work on Windows and know for sure about the emulated multi process ****. Making you use a GUI for one would slow down results. On Unix just shut off or don't install X, leave the RAM in your box to answer requests instead of looking pretty.

    maybe after some more replies I can talk more but I'm still waking up. Didn't have the greatest day to start.
    Kill the lights, let the candles burn behind the pumpkins’ mischievous grins, and let the skeletons dance. For one thing is certain, The Misfits have returned and once again everyday is Halloween.The Misfits FreeBSD
    Cannibal Holocaust
    SuSE Linux
    Slackware Linux

  3. #3
    Jaded Network Admin nebulus200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,356
    Well, one of the things you have to consider in any 'study' like this is the configurations that were used....were they straight out of the box, turn the system on and test, or were any attempts made to change how the system works (to either speed it up or secure it). Either way, in alot of comparisions I have seen, you get more of a comparison of how the systems were setup than of the actual performance of the system ... a good example would be that in Solaris version < 8, there were no default tweaks of the TCP/IP stack... and a web server (Apache) running on a default configuration would literally choke under minimal load...a few stack changes later...the performance was orders of magnitude better...Sun's attitude at the time was we prefer to leave it to the system admin to configure the system how they wish...some of which Sun has changed in its later versions...

    Regardless, at least with the Solaris systems...alot of the tests I saw at the time were not really reflective of the server's capability...

    Can't specifically back up the numbers there, but did want to mention some related things I have personally seen.
    There is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect...There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why'. 'Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. 'Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.

    (Merovingian - Matrix Reloaded)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,130
    But the article isnt talking about Windows, is talking about how Web Server (IIS pehaps?) handle the transactions: using O.S. multitasking or using a monolitic thread (Internal multitasking).
    Supposing that is IIS, does anyone knows that is its thread model?
    BTW, the usage of O.S. multithreading or "internal" multithreading cant prove per se that a system is better than other. Some Mainframes transaction servers (CICS) is single thread and still rocks
    Meu sítio

    FORMAT C: Yes ...Yes??? ...Nooooo!!! ^C ^C ^C ^C ^C
    If I die before I sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to encrypt.
    If I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to brake.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,191
    Hi,

    I was always under the impression that Windows supported multitasking and multithreading.

    DOS on the other hand does not.

    It seems that there is a lot of information missing...............what applications (16 bit 32 bit?), what processors. what RAM etc. When was the test conducted? I can remember when Sun kit would hammer a PC running Windows, if only because it had a much faster processor. We used to use them for CAD applications.

    I would also have thought that MS has a bigger share, particularly of applications servers?

    My guess is the article refers to about 1996?

    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  6. #6
    Jaded Network Admin nebulus200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,356
    Hi,

    I was always under the impression that Windows supported multitasking and multithreading.

    DOS on the other hand does not.
    My understanding was that Windows didn't support true multithreading until NT4 and Win95, and that even then the implementation was lacking (changes that Win2K/XP/2003 have improved significantly upon)...which would BTW put your timing dead on

    I also agree, there is quite a bit of information missing ...
    There is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect...There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why'. 'Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. 'Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.

    (Merovingian - Matrix Reloaded)

  7. #7
    AOs Resident Troll
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,152
    My understanding is Windows 2003 and the Windows.NET applications\technology are true multi "tasking".

    Although could all be just sales hype too.


    MLF
    How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer

  8. #8
    AO BOFH: Luser Abuser BModeratorFH gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Morgan:

    2003 is the best version of Windows I think I've ever used for things like production. It's very fast as well and noticably faster than 2000 on the exact same box. without tweaking. So hype or not it does have something the others don't.
    Kill the lights, let the candles burn behind the pumpkins’ mischievous grins, and let the skeletons dance. For one thing is certain, The Misfits have returned and once again everyday is Halloween.The Misfits FreeBSD
    Cannibal Holocaust
    SuSE Linux
    Slackware Linux

  9. #9
    AOs Resident Troll
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,152
    Yes ...I agree with you gore...it is a HUGE improvement.

    And very stable....have only had very minor issues easy to resolve...although alot of "hotfixes" ...

    Have a 2000 server...that I am trying to convince the customer to upgrade as we speak...so I will keep my eye on this thread.
    How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer

  10. #10
    AO BOFH: Luser Abuser BModeratorFH gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    2000, heh, great for a desktop but server? Not in my opinion. One might argue it's been tested enough to be stable now and now that it's 5 years old it's got most bug worked out. But then again, when the support runs out....

    This is why I always recommend SUSE Linux, it's much cheaper and gives peopel a chance to work in a Unix. Heh and then there is that look on a face you get when someone first looks at YAST. From DOS to Windows to Be to Unix to Linux and any OS, it's the best tool I've used, and even easier than Windows.
    Kill the lights, let the candles burn behind the pumpkins’ mischievous grins, and let the skeletons dance. For one thing is certain, The Misfits have returned and once again everyday is Halloween.The Misfits FreeBSD
    Cannibal Holocaust
    SuSE Linux
    Slackware Linux

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •