Re:Speed of raw IO vs Linux cooked files

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

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

Amen Art! :-) I see too many "NT weenies" out there supporting the total crap that NT is, totally oblivious to the reality that NT is total s h i t. "-) As imperfect as Linux is, it will surpass NT by the end of this year as the OS of choice for small-to-mid-size servers, simply because it does a better job than NT, especially not falling down where NT is famous. Where Linux cannot go, its bigger brother UNIX will step in, consistent and instep with Linux, because they share the same lineage. NT, and Apple will continue to live in denial, in the meantime, new OSes like UNIX will rise up to obliterate NT. NT *had* a chance to step up and be the next great OS, but because Bill Gates hates UNIX so much, he will never ever endorse a UNIX world, instead bent on the honest antithesis of UNIX, NT. And for that we have to be thankful, all diamonds are created under extreme pressure, this will be the future of Linux, and UNIX. As to the original thread, whether or not to use Linux or NT, take the $150 plunge, buy an 8 GB hard drive for a PC, install it, and then install Linux. Honestly set up Informix on it, and see if it does the job. If it doesn't, switch to a more high-powered UNIX. NT will work for small workgroups, but that's it--it's more of a problem for the OS than the data base engine. Thanks, Tim "Art S. Kagel" wrote: > > 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 -- - -- --- Tim Schaefer ---- tschaefe@mindspring.com --- http://www.inxutil.com -- -

I would beg to disagree. I have multiple clients running NT as the prefered database server. I have not had one of them crash or hang to date. Tle largest site has a 40 GB database and has been happily up and running for six months. To be fair, all thesse servers run are IDS and the servers side components of our application. Tim Schaefer wrote: > Amen Art! > > :-) > > I see too many "NT weenies" out there supporting the total crap that > NT is, totally oblivious to the reality that NT is total s h i t. > > "-) > > As imperfect as Linux is, it will surpass NT by the end of this year as > the OS of choice for small-to-mid-size servers, simply because it does > a better job than NT, especially not falling down where NT is famous. > Where Linux cannot go, its bigger brother UNIX will step in, consistent > and instep with Linux, because they share the same lineage. NT, and > Apple will continue to live in denial, in the meantime, new OSes like > UNIX will rise up to obliterate NT. > > NT *had* a chance to step up and be the next great OS, but because Bill > Gates hates UNIX so much, he will never ever endorse a UNIX world, instead > bent on the honest antithesis of UNIX, NT. And for that we have to be > thankful, all diamonds are created under extreme pressure, this will be > the future of Linux, and UNIX. > > As to the original thread, whether or not to use Linux or NT, take the > $150 plunge, buy an 8 GB hard drive for a PC, install it, and then install > Linux. Honestly set up Informix on it, and see if it does the job. If > it doesn't, switch to a more high-powered UNIX. NT will work for small > workgroups, but that's it--it's more of a problem for the OS than the > data base engine. > > Thanks, > > Tim > > "Art S. Kagel" wrote: > > > > 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 > > -- > - > -- > --- Tim Schaefer > ---- tschaefe@mindspring.com > --- http://www.inxutil.com > -- > -