Re[2]: Speed of raw IO vs Linux cooked files

The truth is know by those with the facts. My message was for those who don't. I would never (could never) impugn the knowledge of King Kagel. =) But, real-world, NT is a baby. But if ya wanna hate it, hate it for a reason, not because it's Microsoft (though, that is a pretty damn good excuse). I do, however, have an application that will eat all 700M of my RAM at its first chance at processor time. But I'd make an educated guess that the reason I continue to be fed is because my critical dbs are on HP-UX and AIX. I don't care to find out if I'm right. Everyone knows the reality of the situation, or maybe they don't. Maybe that's why I feel it necessary to defend NT on a regular basis. SMP ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: Speed of raw IO vs Linux cooked files Author: <kagel@bloomberg.net> Date: 6/11/1999 12:08 PM Let's get real-world here. I use WinNT 4.0 SP3 here at work, indeed I am replying from there now, and I run NO GAMES & no flaky software. I run only our Bloomberg terminal package, Hummingbird Exceed, Netscape, and occassionally MS Word. If I do not shutdown and power down my machine every Friday then by 1PM the next Tuesday NT will hang! EVERY OTHER WEEK! In other words the maximum uptime I can experience on my system, now with 128MB of RAM and previously with 40MB so it's hard to blame memory leaks in apps, is 9 days! Of course the system would probably stay up if I ran nothing on it. I also believe that it would stay up if the damned software written for it did not trash the OS all the time. However, on Linux, and UNIX in general, it is almost impossible for software to cause the OS to crash or hang! THAT is the difference that the "pundits" are complaining, or crowing, about. I run Informix on 15 UNIX servers. If my company insisted I run on NT I'd quit on the spot to avoid the pain of being blamed for downtime and OS screwups. OK to be perfectly honest I'd probably start looking for a new job first, I like to eat, but I'd be gone before the first NT server came online! Count on it. Art S. Kagel spasco@unibiz.com wrote: > > To hopefully put a bug into the minds of what I like to call 'Unix-heads' > regarding NT's alleged 'unreliability'... > > NT is very reliable. I read pundits literally every day from people lauding the > virtures of Linux (and other Unix systems which I also appreciate) who write of > NTs unreliability. That a freely available operating system is seen as more > reliable than Microsoft's flagship is a sad statement indeed. If Windows NT > can't handle simple desktop duty without crashing, what business has it in a > server? > > I would say that claiming several crashes in a day (not by you) is normal > Windows NT behavior paints a poorer picture of the user than of Windows NT. > > Verily, Windows NT has won its market share partly on its vaunted ease of > administration. As a result, too many organizations place underqualified people > in frontline administrative roles. This is never done with Unix servers, and > this fact contribues greatly to Unix's reputation for fewer problems. > > Almost all of my systems use NT, and if I keep the games off, and other programs > that can't keep a leash on their leaky COMs (OLE, OCX, Active X, etc.) then its > uptime is equal to my Unix boxes. I look to the programmers when I complain > that my NT system keeps crashing or hordes memory like a dragon and it's gold. > > But to answer your question, it looks like your decision is more cost driven > since you would actually put a price. If it is, I would go with Linux too. > 'Cuz anything free is worth what you paid for it. > > The comments of an NT champion. (not Bill, NT. If there's a difference) > S.M.Pasco > > ____________________Reply Separator____________________ > Subject: Speed of raw IO vs Linux cooked files > Author: Peter Brown <peterbr@ozemail.com.au> > Date: 6/9/1999 10:32 AM > > I have IDS 7.30.TC7 for NT and given NT's unreliability was wanting to take > up current offer of US $99 per user offer > on Linux. > > Does anyone have any stats on performance difference for IDS between Linux > and NT. > > Thanks in advance, > > Peter