Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Salon on Mindcraft II 106

Posted by Hemos from the getting-the-picture dept.
Andrew Dvorak wrote to us with Andrew Leonard's latest Salon piece about the in-progress Mindcraft II testing. Interesting reading-and the difference between the OSes is evident-Linux sent hacks, MS marketers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Salon on Mindcraft II More

Salon on Mindcraft II

Comments Filter:
  • Kurt Gray laments:

    Even still we have no single big source of Linux performance help.


    Have you checked out TuneLinux.com [tunelinux.com]. It's making a good start at being a single big source of such help.

  • But then when things were examined more closely and it was shown that out-of-the-box NT whomps Linux butt big time even when some Linux guru has tuned the machine to the max

    Any reference to the source of this information? Because otherwise we should assume that you pulled it out of your ass.

  • At the time the Mindcraft paper came out, I was working for Linux Hardware Solutions. My first thought, upon looking at their numbers, was "man, that Dell SUCKS! I wonder how much they'd charge to benchmark one of our boxes against that Dell? We'll wipe Dell's rear!"

    My next thought, however, after looking over the details of the "benchmark", was "man, I wouldn't want those incompetents near my computer." There are plenty of reputable benchmarking outfits. Giving Mindcraft more business is NOT a proper solution -- Mindcraft has proven that they are incapable of conducting themselves professionally. They poorly served Microsoft by doing a "benchmark" that had so many holes in it that even the press didn't believe it. Remember, their job was to generate numbers that would be believed -- and they failed miserably. Should we reward such failure with more money?!

    -E
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    "Any company that is setting up a server, whether it be a web server or whatever, and is willing to spend that much money is going to do some homework before they go out and buy something."

    Unfortunately this is not the case. My company routinely buys $10k-$20k server hardware but blindly sticks NT on them. Furthermore, each of these monsters serves up one application.

    We've also got a $10k NT machine that we are supposed to migrate to for fileserving (from Novell on a couple 486s). This project has been around for about 6 months and has gone nowhere since our network admin (a total incompetent in addition to our other problems) can't make it work. NT has no disk quotas, crashes the machine, doesn't support workable login scripts, etc, etc, etc. So what do we do? Don't use a real OS! Waste the money by putting the project on the backburner!

    I actually setup a backup print server on Linux because the NT print server kept crashing so much (about 1/week). But the only people who use it are the ones I supervise. *sigh*
    --
    "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
  • but thats just because its a bit more relevant
    to something i want to set up. anyway, im
    surprised red hat even bothered if its
    true that hardware is stacked in NTs favor.
    i doubt MS would accept if the hardware had to
    be agreed on by both sides. maybe the test
    should go on for three months on a publically
    accessable web server (the request is switched
    off to both with identical content) with a few
    equal CGIs (like a search). and count the server
    crashes of course...

    id love to see Bill Vs RMS on celebrity
    death match! (or a real one for that matter)
  • I write alot of Client/Server Services. Mostly hitting Databases. I do agree that I love my work. Still I'm also a speed FREAK! Every Blue moon a Security guard will catch me running from PC to PC in the office. Runing what I like to call Load tests. With over 700 clients company wide I want my services to run as fast as possible. ( So they do not get replaced by MTS ). Even though the company does not care how fast it runs as long as no one notices a wait. I still like to do my own meger Benchmarks for myself. I think its very cool to come up with a tweak that will let me get 25-50 more tranactions in a minute.
    I'm not sure why so many people seem to put down benchmarks. Benchmarks decide what CPU I buy for Quake, What video card I buy for quake, And what Database I use for a VERY Large size company.
  • So three Linux geeks have been given a full week
    to tune their machines. I hope they post everything
    they do on the web so we can all pick up a few
    performance tweaking tips from them.

    I'm sorry but the "Linux Enterprise" web sites that
    sprouted up during the first Mindcraft aftermath
    have already petered out -- they posted a few
    little tidbits and that's it. I submitted a full
    page of Apache tuning tips to one of those sites
    and they didn't even bother posting any of it.

    Even still we have no single big source of Linux
    performance help.
  • I hope TuneLinux.com takes off, but so far it
    hasn't changed much since the week it was
    launched. The x86 and TCP/IP pages still
    only have two tune-up tips posted. The Apache
    has three links to www.apache.org

    What I'd really like to see is the Linux team at
    PC Week disclose everything they did to optimize
    their servers.

  • ...but not about the benchmarks. Win or lose, the test will help Linux by shining a spotlight on problem areas so that they can be fixed. Microsoft will always be using the media to its advantage rather than make better products. It can afford to do that. Linux has to constantly improve. Tests like this will help it do just that.

  • This site is quite a good recap of the whole Mindcraft affair:

    http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html [kegel.com]

  • How many people use 4 100MB ethernet cards and serve only static pages?

  • I found that the key phrases in this entire article were at the very end.

    Forget the antitrust trial. Ladies and gentlemen,we have a competition.

    Perhaps this test and all the media hype around it have nothing to do with MicroSoft trying to squash Linux, but just to generate the illusion of competition.

    Perhaps after the trial is over, we will see them take out their big guns.

  • How would one define a real world benchmark? -Specifically?

    Some of the benchmarks are real-world benchmarks and some suspect. Or perhaps benchmarks are a pain in that they show one perspective on the "real-world". Is there any URL source with a long-winded analysis of the relative merits of different benchmarks?

    Is there any effort underway by the open/free software community do publically develop a set of real-world benchmarks? If so, where can I find more information?


  • Yes. Microsoft owns everything. They own Slashdot, too, and run it as a place for Linux hackers to vent their spleen ineffectually.

    Or it could be that Salon is sympathetic to Linux and agrees with the contention that the test is set up in such a way as to give NT the most advantage possible.

    Some of the Linux community is reminding me more and more of the old Amiga community, with the "every little thing they do is FUD" seige mentality. (You think a single Amiga 2000 couldn't redo all the special effects from Independence Day faster and at a fraction of the cost? You must be a real anti-Amiga bigot!) You see the same mentality in some Macintosh users, who cannot accept the possibility that one might buy a PC for reasons other than secret mind control messages embedded in "Intel Inside" television ads.

    Not everything that everyone utters that fails to put Linux in the best of all possible lights is part of a grand conspiracy to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt around the universe. Sometimes the negative comments have ulterior motives behind them (which was the real argument against the Mindcraft test); more often than not they come from misinformation, misunderstandings or, at worst, willful ignorance. And there are cases, like it or not, where other operating systems do have an advantage for some users. Maybe you're not a member of the community that wants that advantage, and that's okay (the things that make the Amiga great for video production aren't important to you, or perfect color-matching between print and screen isn't enough to get you to buy a Macintosh). Maybe it's an advantage you would like to see in Linux, and you'll take advantage of the openness of the OS to add new functionality that narrows (or even closes) the gap. But denying the possibility that other operating systems might have some things that intelligent users could be attracted to--yes, even Windows NT, like it or not--is just generating FUD of your own.

  • We know that Micros~1 was not just targeting linux, but the linux/apache combination. They don't care about zeus since Zeus isn't causing their market share to drop through the floor.

    As far as this four ethernet trick thing goes, I simply don't understand this. The linux equivalent would be to use gigbit ethernet, not four 100Mb cards.

    What we should have is a price based benchmark. Give each side $15000 and see what numbers they can get. Include the costs of all the NT server + licenses as well. Testing on 200 clients mean they will have to buy a Emachine with 16MB for a server. Bye-bye, NT!
  • would'nt putting squid in front of apache drastically reduce the number of processes apache has to spawn for this type of test? Can't you do this on the same machine and see some performance gains?
  • I wonder who those (RH) people are. From the article, it sounds like they know their stuff, but obviously, people from the Samba and Apache teams would be the best.

    Let us all wish them good luck now, should we? It's a little suspicious that MS/MindCraft was so interested in re-running the test. Perhaps they've got something nasty for us...

    /* Steinar */
  • While we are all wondering what will the benchmark results be, we are forgetting one thing.

    Let's suppose Windows NT gets a score of 100 and Linux gets a score of 95. Ok, M$ goes home with a happy face and prepares its press release. Linux geeks wonder what happen...

    The issue here is, how much did the NT box cost and how much did the Linux one cost.
    Thats what we call Bang for bucks-Price /Performance ratio

    Why would I pay a few thousand dollars to get an NT box that gets a score of 100 while I can get 2 or 3 Linux boxes at the same price.
  • .... end Jules impersination */

    You seem to be missing a larger piece of the picture I painted, as that sentence wasn't really the crux of my post. But I'd like to take your points one by one.

    I'm not sure how your seeing people talking about "how linux is free" has much to do with anything, but its still a fact. And if you don't think the bottom line matters, even at a company spending a 10 million a quarter on IT, you are sorely mistaken. Yes, Linux works better in many situations, however so does NT, and so does Solaris, and so does MacOS. The right tool for the right job. And in a, money is no object environment, the fact is that anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a soution better than Outlook 2000, Word 2000, Exchange 6, Windows 2000 Server. I've seen the demos, they are scarily cool.

    And, as that was my example, lets expound on it a bit. The number crunchers where I work are currently looking at what it would cost to impliment just such a solution for the 900 users in the central office. Let me share with you the initial number they came up with to support each user for one year. $100 per month, per user. Still think it doesn't seem like a lot?

    $12,000 doesn't seem like a ton of money for an enterprise email system to me either. But -$0- sounds like quite less. (Btw, 600 users doesn't sound like much of an enterprise either. Heck we have a truly stable Linux email solution right now supporting 10,000 users. Net cost initial: Software: -$0-, Hardware: -$50,000-, Setup: -$4,000- man hours. 1st year support: Est. 20 hours: -$1000-.)

    I'm not sure when exactly all Unix (Linux?) administrators became 18 year olds. Personally I'm 28, and while I abhor day to day Unix administration its certainly what I got started on, and I still do some of it today. Did I get started on Linux? No. Can pretty much any real Unix administrator be a real Linux administrator in a matter of weeks, yes. And there are plenty of Unix admins left out there.

    Do you have any idea what MCSEs are making these days?? Its obscene.

    And finally. Linux doesn't need to be sold to companies It is selling itself day in and day out. Its stable, hence reliable, and generally getting easier and easier to use. Not to mention, free. Oh did I mention it was free? Did I mention the licensing for 99% of services was, oh, free? Linux doesn't need to sell itself. However, the applications must be written, they must be ported, they must make it over to Linux, and fast.
  • ... but how you play the game.

    Whether or not a Linux installation wins the benchmarking game against Microsoft NT, the fact is that Linux has made remarkable inroads in the past year - and shows no signs of slowing.

    CEOs, Managers, CTOs, etc... are all making a decision to test Linux installations, if not outright deploy them. Electionic mail infrastructures are being built on Linux based machines in Fortune 500 companies. Winning benchmarks or not, the Linux juggernaut will roll on.

    A free operating system, that runs free server daemons is going head to head with a company that would charge $12,000, just in licensing, to offer 600 users email services using thier groupware solution.

    What would my message be to the Linux/OSS coders out there? Stop looking at benchmarks and start looking at functionality. I've seen the Office2000 suite. I've been to the Mircosoft presentations. If collaboration is the way of the future, then someone needs to come up with an answer to Windows 2000 Server, Exchange 6, and Office 2000 - and quickly.

    All the benchmarks in the world won't mean jack shit if you don't have software that people want running on your OS to produce them.
  • A free operating system, that runs free server daemons is going head to head with a company that would charge $12,000, just in licensing, to offer 600 users email services using thier groupware solution.

    Ok, so I keep seeing people talking about how linux is free. Frankly, $12,000 doesn't seem like that much to me, for something like an enterprise email system. That's an initial cost, and eliminating it will save some money, but you also have to support this infrastructure.

    There aren't that many people who are able to administer linux boxes. At least, not that many that companies are looking to hire. Granted, many large businesses are managed by idiots who are completely out of touch with reality. But they still won't hire an 18-year-old to run their mission-critical system. However well he (or she) can do the job.

    So, they buy a solution that they can hire people to administer. Their support costs are lower due to them being able to hire less-skilled people, and pay them less.

    I think the strength of linux is not that it is free, but that it is better. That's how you have to sell it to the companies.
  • Three markatroids and three hackers? Is that just for the press conference or is that it for the whole testing? Is MS going to bring in acutal engineers to do the tweeking. For that matter - are the Linux guys going to be able to call on the communities expertise?
    Personally I think we're going to lose (well, unless the 3 suits really is all MS are throwing at it. ;)) but going head-to-head - will be a steep learning curve. I mean, when the oppisition isn't a nebulous company but rather 3 guys and their server on the other side of the room - that's got to be a hell of a motivator.
    How much tweeking are we allowed to do? Easy to imagine a situation where the open source team start tweeking the source not just the config and MS are going to cry fowl. But for my money that's open sources strenght, it's not like there's anything stoping our hypothetical customer from doing that too.
    Like I said - I think we're going to lose, but we're going to get alot out of it. I for one am eager to see what transpires.
    AdamT
    (As a side note - could we measure pages served per 24hrs instead of per second. Perhaps we can catch up during the reboots. :)
  • Why not fight FUD with Anticipation, Certainty and Knowledge?

    How about tossing up some research-oriented web pages... oriented, that is, toward the middle management sort of people that are making OS implementation decisions.

    Keep the site news-oriented, but keep the news oriented toward the latest developments in OSes and core support software.

    Run a sidebar tracking some handy things... like the number of bugs found. Estimated cost of ownership (factoring in things like downtime and lost files). Risk factor. Etcetera.

    Start running this as an alternative media site. The damned magazines aren't nearly aggressive enough in emphasizing the collosal and rather sickening security holes in IIs, and the safety/stability of Apache, for instance.

    Call it ZedNet...

    Anyway, point is this: once the actual cost in owning Microsoft software becomes apparent -- and not just the idiocy that they call IIs, but also the file effups of Word, the trashed files of Windows and the virus-luvin' Outlook -- then the corporate world will start to gain a clue.

  • You are completely clueless, and do not know what FUD means. People like you, GiMP, give Linux advocates a bad name. It is astounding that you would present such an attack on a journalist who has demonstrated himself to be a friend of Linux. Don't you realize that it is people like you who are causing Linux to get poor press (by getting journalists pissed off at the whole Linux community)?

    Get a clue: Linux is not currently the best at everything. Given the rapid rate of improvement, Linux will soon win in categories where it does not currently win, but if you are such a moron as to think that anyone who suggests that Linux is not currently the best OS for any conceivable application is in Microsoft's pay, then please just shut up.

    There's a reason that the trade press just stopped writing about the Amiga: it's because any time they printed anything other than press releases from Commodore they were assaulted by people like you. So the path of least resistance was simply to not write about the Amiga at all.

    The test is a replay of the Mindcraft test which is slanted to favor NT. The guy who did Samba has already said that, for this case, NT beats Samba. It is not FUD to print the truth.

  • While Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the desktop, they are not doing nearly so well in the server space, which is what tests like these are about. Linux or Solaris boxes running Samba are direct competition for NT Server seats, and are winning that competition in many cases.

    The existence of competition in some of Microsoft's markets doesn't help them in claiming that they don't have a monopoly in other markets.

  • WTF does this article keep saying that Windows will beat Linux, the tests aren't even completed.. God I hate FUD, is Salon under MS's claw too?
  • Everyone seems to be taking this for granted - but didn't the post-Mindcraft I analysis focus on some rather obvious blunders made by the company?

    Have those blunders mysteriously vanished? Or do we now think they don't really matter?

    D

    ----
  • If collaboration is the way of the future, then someone needs to come up with an answer to Windows 2000 Server, Exchange 6, and Office 2000 - and quickly.

    Lotus Domino 5 for Linux (coming soon)?

    (If it's taken the mighty Microsoft years and years to competively position a product against Lotus, I don't know if it's realistic that free software programmers could come up with one "quickly". Besides, when you cut through the marketing smoke of "collaboration", "groupware", and "knowledge management", you can see that many or most of the tools to do this stuff are there already. Maybe someone just needs to work on the packaging. The weak spot in both Notes/Domino and OSS is the client interfaces, which is the strong side of MS Office.)


    --
  • Even if Linux doesn't beat NT, if it comes close, then it has won. The reason is in the cost.

    This comment is indicative of how the Linux advocacy party line has been affected by the Mindcraft tests. Before the tests it was conventional wisdom that Linux/Apache would pretty much stomp on NT/IIS. Now it's some cost/benifit ratio calculation.

    Bottom line is who cares? I would guess that less than 1% of MCSEs are even aware of this study. Performance benchmarks are only going to make a difference in a small number of cases. If I was making the Linux/Apache versus NT/IIS decision, there would be a large number of other factors to think about first, such as what your developers know for example (ASP/VB or PHP/CGI), or how the reliablity or managiblity stands up.

    The fact that some in the Linux community have gotten into a pissing match with MS on this one only shows that they're playing the game by Microsoft rules.
    --

  • (Score:1)

    by mattc ( 12417 )
    I thought Mindcraft II was a computer game?? LOL!
  • This kind of competition is actually a good thing for those of us more interested in using computers than arguing about them.

    On the OSS side, it means intensive research of a kind that will expose flaws and bugs that are not so easily discovered in everyday use - which means they'll get fixed, as we've already seen from MindCraft I. Meanwhile, the peer review process of OSS will continue in parallel, of course...

    On the Microsoft side, it means that bugs and flaws will be exposed to the public eye, meaning they will have to fix them to salvage their reputation in the public eye...

    I don't think that it's particularly good for either the Linux-companies or Microsoft's profit lines, but we'll see what happens. I think chances are it will cost research $$$ on both sides and not really affect sales of either side very much.

    But I'm not trying to sell Linux, just use it - and sometimes work requires me to use Windows... so for me, this is a good thing. I say bring on more competitions like it!
  • I think the problem that most people had with the previous test was not that the kernel was not up to the challenge at the time--that's all but admitting defeat! The problem was that the original test may have put a highly tuned NT box against a mistuned Linux box. If we are trying to rectify those test findings then it makes sense to use the software available at the time for both boxes.

    Now whether or not these test results really matter today after Linux has evolved a bit, that is an open question. My understanding is that MindCraft is trying to save their image of integrity by recreating the initial test in a more equiable way. I think MindCraft's integrity is on the line more than the preformance of either of the OS's.

  • I am not so sure why salon keeps hinting that Microsoft will be seen in a "positive light" though...
    The whole tone of the article implied that NT was going to come out ahead. After initial remarks about the deck being stacked, the whole remainder was along the lines of 'NT is going to win this round... but Linux will prevail in the long run.'
    Although it wasn't written that way, there was also the slight implication that given its inevitable defeat this time round, the linux guys had to get their excuses in in advance.
  • don't be too disappointed, the guy who did the tests showed up on linux-kernel and asked for advice.
    It seemed clear (I saw some of the results, but I don't remember) that the mindcraft results are not completely wrong. OTOH he also didn't tune linux in every possible way and was told that, but then he didn't have the machines anymore.

  • Why not just select a fixed budget for hardware and software and get both sides to come up with the best solution they can put together within that budget? Surely that is closer to the constraints that people are working to when they are looking for a solution.

    That is an excellent idea. My idea is for a small business intranet server, where the licensing costs for an operating system can be a big deal. I can see this:

    You have one week and $2000. Your requirements are this:

    1. Serve dynamic web pages (perl/php or ASP -- your choice).
    2. Serve SMB shares, such as the network app installation directory.
    3. Serve as a firewall.
    4. Serve the company e-mail system (POP3/SMTP or Exchange Server).

    You must support this for 200 internal users. This precludes the use of NT Workstation, as it allows only 10 concurrent users.

    Is this the sort of test you had in mind?


    Mike
    --

  • what type of machine does Rob run for slashdot? With the traffic it gets, I'm just curious.

    According to http://slashdot.org/articles/99/ 03/08/170243.shtml [slashdot.org], the server is a VA Research Dual PII/450 with 512 MB RAM. IIRC, the most common cause of the slowness is a lack of bandwidth, and the cause of the downtime is the ISP.


    Mike
    --

  • Is it going to compare the same server on two different OSes? The best each has to offer? Static HTML? Dynamic? Win9X clients only? A mixture of services and clients? High-end hardware? Hardware supported by both OSes? I hope Red Hat was smart enough not to agree to a contest they can't win.

    Best we find out the details and register our complaints before the results are out.

  • ... at this comment:

    "Microsoft customers had already demonstrated
    a distinct lack of interest in having a
    version of Microsoft Office that worked on
    Linux, so Microsoft had no plans to push
    forward in that market."

    Well, duh! Microsoft customers, last time I
    checked, used WINDOWS. Hello!
  • Why even bother selecting a specific platform?

    Why not just select a fixed budget for hardware and software and get both sides to come up with the best solution they can put together within that budget? Surely that is closer to the constraints that people are working to when they are looking for a solution.
  • I hope Red Hat was smart enough not to agree to a contest they can't win.

    I hope so too. I also hope they keep in touch with the Samba team, and I hope they use zeus or something similarly faster than Apache. They really should delay a week or two to allow a catch-up on technology. PC-Week would, I assume, do the same thing if Windows 2000 were about to release. In fact they do the same FUD thing every time a competitor releases a product, using the smokescreen process.


  • Yet I am certain Microsoft will be allowed to use SP5.
  • I don't understand why they even care. Let Microsoft conduct their benchmarks, just continue delivering the product. Everyone knows that Linus and RedHat has been doing that before, and think of all the FUD they have been going through. Microsoft tactics are not going to change. There are always going to be some stupid Win-benchmark where NT is secure, Office is fast, and IE is Sun-Java compliant. Linux doubled and doubled the number of its users for years while the trolls in the media always said how much faster their NT installation went.

    no flames,
    mxk


  • What's the worst that can happen? Microsoft wins. In a fair test, Linux should come in very close. And Microsoft gets to trumpet that "Windows NT is 1.2 times faster than Linux!"

    But think about it further. If Microsoft wins, the hackers will tighten Linux up even more. Linux is leaner and faster than anything Microsoft will ever hope to put out.

    And finally, Microsoft can't win in the long run because Linux can't lose! There is no company to go out of business and take Linux with it. People will always hack Linux, because they can. The kernel will always be there, and the GNU tools will always be there. Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Caldera, and all the others could all go out of business tomorrow -- and you'd still be able to download Linux, compile it yourself, and put together your own distribution.

    In short, Linux will never die.
  • >2. Using a kernel level threaded webserver.

    The Linux guys might already be doing this.
    There IS a threaded kernel httpd. Both RedHat
    and Microsoft know it. The question is: are the
    linux guys allowed to use it?

    ( http://www.fenrus.demon.nl )
  • I read a lengthy explanation on Mindcrafts website .. the "rematch" will actually consist of (IIRC) three seperate sets of tests.

    In the first set, they would try to reproduce the results of the initial set of tests.

    The second involved the Linux experts tweaking the Linux box to its max using any fixes/patches etc available at the time of the original tests.

    The third involved the Linux experts tweaking the Linux box to its max using anything and everything available right now.

    I dont have the URL, unfortunately; its on my (Linux) home machine.

  • I think Salon misunderstood Brown's "arrogance" -- Brown didn't really care. Benchmarks, etc. are interesting but irrelevant. Speaking as an open source contributor, I program stuff because it's fun, because I get a "kick out of it," and because I'm not satisfied with the current status of software. We're making this stuff for us, not to bring down Microsoft or win converts. Really, as long as there were a solid base of open source programmers, I personally wouldn't care if every other person and corporation on earth ran Microsoft software.

    It's by us for us, the rest of the world be damned. We geeks think it's cool.

    Regards,
    QBobWatson


    Joe Rabinoff

  • Retail bookseller Barnes And Noble has confirmed reports that they have a "task force" designed to counter the competition of local libraries.

    Of course I made that up (please don't sue me). But it provides an analogy for "Microsoft vs. Linux". Although for-profit players like Red Hat, Penguin, VA, etc. are certainly involved now, the software collectively called "Linux" is still free. Most of the contributions have come from people who give away their work for the good of the community.

    That phrase -- "the good of the community" -- is important. I liken Free Software to a charity project. To treat it like "competition" is like a cafeteria trying to crush the local Salvation Army soup kitchen. It exists because people want it, need it, and are willing to contribute to it. It's a community, not a company.

    I know that this comparison is not pure. Many Free Software advocates openly express hatred of Microsoft. Many openly state that they would love to see their software bury Microsoft. Some of this may be due to "hate-the-rich-guy" syndrome. Some of it may be due to very real philosophical and technical objections. I wouldn't expect any business to take this lying down. I would expect a defense -- but I don't think "defense" is something Mircosoft plays well. Instead, they counter by going on offense against Free Software.

    Still, to me at least, it's like watching Sears tell people not to get clothes from the local Goodwill. If some people like the Goodwill clothes better, whose fault is that?
  • (As a side note - could we measure pages served per 24hrs instead of per second. Perhaps we can catch up during the reboots. :)

    Better yet, and ha ha only serious--resurrect Core Wars.

    If both tests are done simultaneously on the same network, we could add a side app on the Linux box that would utilize the latest NT/IIS exploit, creating a DoS, crashing their system, or (my personal favorite, if this is possible) taking down NT entirely and remotely installing Linux on it. Just imagine the looks on the NT engineers' faces!

    After all, Microsoft pretty much invented the game of victory by keeping the competition from running (DR-DOS, "We aren't done 'Till Lotus Won't Run", WfW 3.11 vs. OS/2, the IE remover script). They'd be hypocrites to complain about Linux using such tactics (of course, why should that stop them?)

    Microsoft, of course, would be able to return the favor and attempt to crash Linux. But methinks that Linux would survive the Battle of the Script Kiddies better than NT would.

  • They really should delay a week or two to allow a catch-up on
    technology.

    Sorry, that was one of the terms.. the Linux people are not allowed to
    use any patches that did not exist (or were not publicly available)
    before April 5, 1999.

    Also, (reading between the lines) they have to use Apache.

    This is a set-up, pure and simple. Gee, getting hardware that one OS
    is tuned for, and the other OS doesn't support, then comparing them.
    Red Hat should have just published a press release that they wouldn't
    participate until more equitable hardware was used.

    I tried going to Mindcraft's site to look for the terms, but the site
    was down... could it be that the server got attacked by the latest DOS
    last night? :)
  • "Microsoft customers had already demonstrated a distinct lack of interest in having a version of Microsoft Office that worked on Linux, so Microsoft had no plans to push forward in that market."

    Oh yeah, believe it now . . . they are making a version for linux . . . I would not be surprised if it is 'redhat' . . .

    It is often easy to tell what ppl are thinking by what they deny. The very fact that they mention it means they are at least thinking about it.

  • meant to imply something like 'redhat certified' or thereabouts.

    not a bitch about rh at all, just the perception that it is the be all and end all of linux stuff, which is not of their making really.

    I think m$ owns a bit of sco as well (and maybe sco is xenix?) so, if rh ipo's, m$ could easily buy stock . . . they have the cash and the history.

    Maybe m$ on linux would be a good thing in the end. IBM seems to be able to compete across platforms these days and has seemingly given up trying to own the OS.
  • The thing here is not so much if Linux will kick NT (in this config, I doubt it will), but if Linux will do substantially better than it did in the first test.

    If the difference between NT and Linux is NOT the 3.5 times and 2.5 times faster that they published before, all criticisms agains Mindcraft still stand.

    We all know that Linux will, sooner or later (probably sooner :) kick NT's butt in this kind of benchmark(et)ing...the deal with the new test is...did Mindcraft f'k up the first and second tests? The answer is, almost certainly, yes...and that is what the community should focus on. NT may be faster this week, but Mindcraft has been lieing for long enough.

    Vox

  • No, they're not.
  • If I remember correctly, NT Server outperformed Linux by a significant amount--more than 2 times (???). It would take some serious optimization to create a performance increase of that magnitude, especially since, I'm sure, M$ is doing more optimization of their own.

    I don't doubt that NT would outperform Linux on such a beast of a machine, but I certainly wouldn't run NT or Linux on it (4 processors, 2GB RAM, a RAID). Isn't the SMP in Linux very new? I'd probably, well first shop and compare, then choose something like Solaris or another web server and OS optimized for that many processors, which would outperform both. Linux and NT, I would think, would be best at doing general purpose computing.


  • Although this server is designed for NT

    This appears to be the crux of the matter,
    though it's not just the hardware it's also
    the nature of the tests themselves.
    I wonder if they would consider getting the box
    to do web, file and print serving at the same
    time :)

    (There are also the fiddles the original tests
    involving memory and network cards to consider.)

    Even if Linux doesn't beat NT, if it comes close,
    then it has won. The reason is in the cost. How
    much does NT cost compared to Linux

    Or even "how big a Linux *system*, would the
    money needed to but this quad xeon, NT (version
    NCC 1701) and all the client access licences,
    buy you?"

  • Why not just select a fixed budget for hardware
    and software and get both sides to come up with
    the best solution they can put together within
    that budget? Surely that is closer to the constraints that people are working to when they
    are looking for a solution

    The point of this is NOT about any kind
    of real world simulation. It's about Microsoft
    making their NT darling look good. Pure marketing,
    end of story.

    If it was about the real world then the hardware
    would be different and the tests would be
    different.

  • out-of-the-box NT

    If you are refering to the original Mindcraft "tests" you will
    find that this was anything but "out of the box" in relation
    to NT.

    The had virtually unlimited help from Microsoft
    in tweaking NT.

    Dispite what the "Cult of Bill" might like to proclaim.

  • As far as this four ethernet trick thing goes,
    I simply don't understand this.

    The effect is to turn the NT machine into a kind
    of "semi-cluster". (Though unlike a real cluster
    redundancy is not provided.) I'm also suspicious
    of the claims to only *use* 1G of memory whilst
    physically putting 4G in. e.g. as well as
    assigning a NIC to a specific processor could
    they be assigning a chunk of physical memory.

    The other "trick" with NT is to have the box
    perform one and only one task.

    The linux equivalent would be to use gigbit
    ethernet, not four 100Mb cards.

    Actually using several ethernet segments is
    about the best way to get best performance with
    a client/server setup. (Switching hubs do not
    help much here BTW. These make most sense it a
    truely peer-peer setup.)
  • Rob wouldn't be able to afford NT to do all that he does.

    It seems that NT runs better on some servers, but it better run ALOT better if I'm going to pay the expensive amount to have it.

    Side note: what type of machine does Rob run for slashdot? With the traffic it gets, I'm just curious.

  • There's no question that the average Joe Schmoe computer will run Linux faster than NT. Unfortunately, this "bench-marketing" is done on a high end server. Although this server is designed for NT, it would be good for Linux to do well.

    Even if Linux doesn't beat NT, if it comes close, then it has won. The reason is in the cost. How much does NT cost compared to Linux. Also, you get the source (although Microsoft said they would give you the source too, but for how much??? :) And I don't need to mention anything about security.

    If I was a manager, NT had better cripple Linux, otherwise it is not worth the money. So if Linux can keep up with NT, then it has won. It will only be a matter of time when Linux will equal the performance or surpass it altogether.
  • agreed. If they insist on using Apache, they must be taken to task for claiming "NT vs Linux web performance". Clearly they are measuring Apache, not Linux, and in an area upon which it is not focused.

    That two obvious solutions to this problem exist points out a rather blatant lack of objectivity on the part of Mindcraft:

    1) Use the fastest available static page server for Linux, as is done for Micros~1. (compare both OS's under their best conditions)

    2) Use Apache on both platforms to eliminate the rather massive application variable. (compare the two OS's in an "apples to apples" test)

    Unless, of course, the whole point of this test is to provide the documentation for a misleading MS ad campaign that claims NT is a faster web server platform than Linux.

  • Yeah (Score:1)

    by Pingo ( 41908 )
    I have been running Winslow on a few different PC:s and it has allways been a great performance hit to upgrade them to Linux.

    No benchmark can change my first hand personal experiences about how Linux performs.

    //Gunnar
  • Seriously, I would buy that t-shirt.

    Wouldn't you?


    Will in Seattle
  • We all know Linux won't die. It's free. That distinction from propriatary commercial OS' is what protects it from destruction. A commercial OS goes away when monetary support for it stops; be it the owning company's disinterest in it or, more likely, due to external competition. That has been MS' success. Market against your competition, dry up its commercial support, and the competition withers and dies. Linux doesn't live off monetary support. That tactic won't work.

    I don't worry about Linux's survival. I worry about its acceptance.

    I like linux. I use it at home. I use it at work (albeit a 'rogue' installation). I would like to see more support for it.

    When a vendor comes up with a solution that my organization wants to use... I would like to see it available for my linux machine. When new hardware comes out that I'd like to use... I would like to see support for it in linux.

    When my boss wants to implement some solution... I would like him to consider Linux as a candidate. If Linux won't fit the bill, so be it. But it would be nice to see decissions made beyond a single company's glossy brochures.

    Linux "winnning" in the marketplace helps all this happen. Heck... for that matter, what's good for Linux is also good for Unix in general. I've heard less people use Unix in a "yet another dead OS" tone since Linux has made buzzword status in the press.

    So no... Linux won't die just because MS frowns in its direction. That idea is absurd. But MS can prevent Linux from expanding in amazing new directions. The only harm is the opportunity lost. And what a shame that would be.

  • That's not really fair.... to microsoft

    It's quite easy to put together a decent web server for a small business for less than the cost of NT itself.

  • everyone on slashdot concentrated on the obvious blunders. I saw references elsewhere that fixing those blunders, and using correct tuning did improve performance by a few percentage points - changing the 2.5:1 performance ratio to something like 2:1

    the test was incredibly useful in demonstrating some of the linux and apache weaknesses, especially around threads and page/memory locking in the linux smp code.

    workarounds have been made in some areas, but i don't know anything about their stability.

    if you looked at the change logs for the linix kernel from 2.2.6 thru 2.2.10 you will see many adjustments inolving kernel locking, smp code and tcp stacks.

    i expect these fixes would have arrived anyway in due course; but having faults in these areas shown up in a public contest sure does focus the mind.
  • >>These benchmarks are totally unfair. Apache is not particulary fast (because speed is mostly irrelevent in web serving) and SMB is native to Windows (even throw SAMBA is very good)

    So you concede the point of the benchmarks, which is that IIS and NT are faster than Apache and Linux? If not, why are they unfair?
  • The thing is that they use the fastest server for NT (IIS) and we aren't allowed to use the fastest for Linux (Zeus?).
    And then they use these results to prove that NT is faster than Linux...

    Apache wasn't built for speed, rather flexibility, so it's pretty pointless to test Linux vs NT with apache.
  • I think its a great match up to see a bunch of young hackers in the same room (and on the same level) as these tired old ms execs, and their hired help...I am not so sure why salon keeps hinting that Microsoft will be seen in a "positive light" though...
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the test server a multiprocessor x86 machine that costs >$10000?
    Frankly, I don't see why everyone is so worked up over a test like this. Any company that is setting up a server, whether it be a web server or whatever, and is willing to spend that much money is going to do some homework before they go out and buy something. Anyone in the computer industry knows that with that kind of money more powerful machines start to really enter into the field, like Alphas, Ultras, and SGI workstations. All of which, when loaded with Linux or their respective OS, will beat out a x86 machine loaded with MS any day of the week.
    As for companies that aren't as computer savy, Linux's older cousins like Sun, SGI, and SCO have extensive marketing teams who's job is to show the customer what is out there at that price.
    If MS wants to conduct feel good tests in order to improve moral in their company, fine, I could care less.
    As for porting Office 2000 onto Linux. I hope they don't port that piece over to Linux. Even if they do, who is going to spend money, year after year, on junk like that when Corel is giving out a better word processor for free?
  • The first Mindcraft was pitifully biased. No one really argues that. But one should be a little more careful about dismissing this round of testing. After all, with Red Hat folks in the same room, suddenly this test changes from "let's play with this new Linux thingie" to a legitimate showdown. For PHBs, mostly, Red Hat is Linux, and they're going to make their deployment decissions based on comparison studies like this -- it doesn't matter if Linux groupies quibble about the testing conditions. If Linux is going to try to be a viable alternative in the commercial market, it will live or die by these tests. Salon said this:
    If the Linux punks wanted to make good on their claims to be aiming at the big-time "enterprise" market, then they had to learn how to play with the big boys
    "Punks" not withstanding, they're right. I know many PHBs, MIS directors, training centers, etc. that are sitting on the sidelines right now, waiting to see if Linux is going to be here in a year (as an enterprise OS). The only thing that will change their mind is favorable mainstream media reviews. We, as a community, have to shift our paradigm a bit. Not totally away from the group-of-hackers mindset, but at least acknowledging that the world-at-large runs on market forces that have to be dealt with. Salon makes a good point: Linux, as community, is going to have to get used to tests, benchmarks, a reasonable amount of shrink-wrap standardization, and so forth. The challenge, as I see it, will be to make that crucial step while holding on to the spirit of invention and community that make Linux great. My $.02; and a rambling first post.
  • I agree with you. Microsoft has virtually unlimited resources to spin the media any way they choose. Just look at all the commercials on TV showing how normal people are better and better daily because of Microsoft. The Linux community does not show commericals like how Linux has accellerated open source, given new life to older systems, drastically reduced IT costs(MS assertion that a free OS is negligable to total costs is ludicrous, considering NT per seat costs), and actually has given a choice in PC operating systems.

    This Mindcraft fiasco is nothing but good for Linux. I agree with Salon in its assertion that a negative outcome would double the efforts of Linux coders and advocates. If we(Linux) win, that will be great but MS could easily spin the stunt or make another benchmark. If the latter is the case, I think MS will be smarter than to show how poorly they set this up.
    -Clump
  • Well the problem is that people ARE using NT. An attitude I see often is that it is "a Microsoft world." There are too many kids that want to be rich so they get IS or CS degrees while knowing little more than how to check e-mail. These kids then get hired and are scared to death of Unix. To them it is much easier to buy a service pack than to read a man page. Granted, that is not the case in all situations, but the attitude is rising and is alarming to me.
    -Clump
  • I can't believe I didn't think of that. Who using Linux would be a Microsoft customer? Someone who downloaded their beta media player? Here is an honest question: How can a Linux-only user be a Microsoft customer?
    -Clump
  • Not trying to start something, but what did you mean by "I would not be surprised if it is 'redhat'"? There are people who use and like Red Hat, and there are people that choose other distros. Linux is a great choice, and in Linux you can choose your distro. I think one big obsticle we must overcome is that attitude of "Well, I compile all my apps so I am better than you who use RPM". All I am saying is lets focus our efforts on Linux as a whole and not dwell on distro bickering.
    -Clump
  • I definitely understand the concern. Many people feel that Red Hat is in a position to exploit Linux and could become another MS. I think the fear is legitimate, but I also feel that the community has pushed it too far recently. Not you, but in general. I definitely am not saying that we should back off or accept everything they do.


    I do think MS software on Linux would be a good thing. After all, it would be another choice on what to run. Make no mistake, I can't stand MS and avoid running their buggy software but I am not representing everyone. There are a good number of people, like me in the past, who would not switch to Linux because applications were lacking. If another company ports to Linux, we all can gain.
    -Clump
  • The German computer magazine c't has also
    announced a "highend webserver test".
    The nowhere mention mindcraft, but the description
    of the test is:
    4 CPUs, 2 GB RAM and RAID system
    NT with IIS vs Linux with Apache

    The magazine is supposed to be out at 21st
    of June.

    The c't magazine is a very reputable and competent
    source of information, I'm very curious how
    their tests will turn out.

    I'm also confident that Linux will look good in
    a fair test. :)

    -Stefan






  • Because the current tests are being performed under the exact same conditions as the one a couple months ago and NT won by a longshot. MS discovered that on this hw and with these benchmarks NT widely outperforms Linux and that is why it is being run. I don't think the LInux team can even install updated drivers.


    This is a non-real world test just to make NT look good. Noone uses just one server to serve 50 million hits a day.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can be replaced by this computer.

Close