Mindcraft Fun Continues 322
LinuxOnEveryDesktop sent us Mindcraft's comments on a
third benchmark that
will be open to a wider array of Linux Experts (the second
benchmark took tips from Linus which raised a lot of eyebrows: my
favorite being 'did they require Bill to be involved too?')
There are quite a few restrictions, but overall it seems
like a solid chance to show what Linux can really do. Check
it out.
Re:Linux Expert (Score:1)
its a trap! time to limit damage! (Score:1)
The original NT result has been validated externally but I suspect they'll move the goalposts and hack NT beyond recognition so that even if Linux matches the NT score in test 1 it looks bad in the new test.
The whole thing is set up to save the reputation of both mindcraft and microsoft and has nothing to do with giving Linux or Apache a fair deal.
The benchmark is only open in that tuning can be done but the hardware is deliberately chosen to run NT quickly, as are the clients and the benchmark itself - the football pitch is definately sloped and at quite an angle.
It can safely be assumed that the benchmark was designed after some investigation from microsoft on NT's strengths and Linux' acilles heel.
Get ready for some damage limitation. we need some benchmarks of dynamic content, database (they were published briefly), and on more appropriate hardware and environments.
We also need to see a test that recogises stability, security, etc.
Mindcraft's test is pure hype, I don't even think that it will provide any helpful insights for developers because any problems or limitations won't apply or affect any but the rarest and contrived situations.
TCP/IP (Score:1)
TCP is also common in industry, in fact a 'standard'.
But then, clients on 56K dialup lines would add realism.
Anyone else try copying large files (~12Meg+) from NT Server to 98 client over ethernet/10Mpbs? I've noticed that smb barfs, where ftp/tcp works.
Sm@rt Reseller (Score:1)
There was an article in that magazine not two maybe three months back on NT/Linux server comparison. Unfortunately, I didn't keep the issue, and I can't remember the server specs, but I do remember that they said that linux (Red Hat with Samba) was a better windows server than windows itself. I believe it provided 5x the performance at high loads.
Does anyone have this? Can we post it? Or post a link to it? I've not seen it mentioned, but it was a solid unbiased test that proved what linux could do on a modest machine.
Re:Stupid benchmarks i think (Oops !) (Score:1)
/Micke
Do our own benchmarks? (Score:1)
With tests like this, who needs a Cray (Score:1)
of hardware. Will an i386-Linux machine outperform a Cray vector
supercomputer? Most likely yes!, if Linus tailors the hardware and
the software to our liking, we will easily win.
So forget the Mindcraft challenge, with tests like these we should go
against the Crays
Re:thttpd (Score:1)
ned [cmu.edu]
Good name and reputation (Score:1)
Mindcraft accuses Linux and others who posted critical comments, and the press, of besmirching its good name and honesty. A threat of legal action is implied. Such threats, implied or otherwise, are much worse than the original decption. Mincraft has no credibility or honor.
That is enough. Who are the idiots from the Linux community who are cooperating with Mindcraft in this scam ? Mindcraft has already lost its good
name by not prominently identifying the original test as Microsoft funded, and now tries to intimidate individuals, magazines and IT companies that exercise their right to free speech and engage in peer review.
Clearly Mindcraft has its own axe to grind. Any Linux guru who cooperates with such a discredited
venture does great damage to us all. The world will forget about Mindcraft, except these media hungry Linux "experts" take the bait, and lend credibility to a discredited and dishonourable commercial company which, to add icing to the cake, makes threats of implied legal action when these same individuals exercise their rights to free speech and peer review of Mindcraft's methods.
This situation is grave, only because Linux gurus who should know better have taken this bait. The proper response would be legal action against Mindcraft for false and misleading reporting of its initial tests and failure to adequately disclose its funding. In other words, misrepresentation and slander of Linux and Linux related software and service vendors. It is time to start playing hardball with these dishonourable people who can never gain respect in the IT community no matter how many repeat tests they perform.
It would be better for Mindcraft to just close shop, and best for Linux gurus to stop playing MIcrosoft's game and use some common sense in such matters. It may well be that NT beats Linux in certain tests with certain hardware configurations. So what. Nobody would care except that these people who may be respected in the Linux community are so eager for publicity that they fail to see they are just being used by Mindcraft and MS to their own disadvantage.
Re:Mindcraft's Motivation... (Score:1)
For a more complete idea of benchmarking what should be done is they should design systems based on what would really happen say in a small, medium, large, and possibly max performance areas. Then setup budgets that should be used for each level, except for the top which could be whatever anyone would want to spend. Of course Microsoft could probably win that one since they could spend the most.
This way you could show more realistic situations, where the equipement would be set up for certain purposes, and they could be designed to show the true strengths of the platforms, say NT with 4 processors, and Linux Clustering for an example. However other platforms should be allowed also as I would love to see OSX compete head to head in a open test with NT and Linux.
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:1)
Question: Who has servers where 2% of this much traffic really matters at this speed. People doing VR or building Beowulf clusters?
Another Question: Is speed more important than reliability?
Dusty Lloyd lloydu00@usfca.edu
Only 2 things can happen... (Score:1)
Scenario 1: We get our butts kicked. NT beats linux into a pulp in front of everyone and it's a huge embaressment. Microsoft toots its own horn even louder than usual, and all that positive press we've been getting will essentially be negated. The only good that can come of it is that critical components are finally improved and perhaps, one day, will outperform NT even though it will have cost us dearly.
Scenario 2: We win, or tie (as much as a "tie" can be defined in benchmarks). Either way, it proves to our *slight* advantage since we can shut Microsoft up for awhile about their being better by fighting fire with fire. But the problem is M$ already has what they're looking for... they continue to have the first benchmarks bashing linux into the ground.
Either scenario ends with M$ giving linux the shaft. We have to remember that complacency will kill us, and overconfidence will turn us into a bunch of horn-tooting, advocating Linuxserfs. The only way we can win at this is improving the system (both the Linux system components and our way of doing things). Both will have to evolve if we ever expect to reduce Microsoft to a mere corporation instead of dictatorship. M$ will always have the upper hand when it comes to marketing. No one's ever beat them. Let's use the fact that they SUCK at making OS'es to our advantage buy beating the living *TAR* out of them, even *UNTUNED*.
Tuning to what end? (Score:1)
Price/Performance SCARES Mindcraft (Score:1)
In the Mindcraft report comparing NT with Netware [mindcraft.com], price/performance appeared at the very top of the report in the executive summery. Likewise, in the comparison between NT and Solaris [mindcraft.com], Mindcraft begins with an executive summery going over the price/performance. In fact, a spot on Mindcraft web site will be dedicated to price/performance [mindcraft.com] since it is such a critical measurement.
So, when it comes to comparing NT and Linux, where is the price/performance figures? The Linux report also has an executive summery like the last two comparisons that Mindcraft published. But the key issue of price/performance never apppears. It is missing from the executive summery and missing from the report complettely. The reason for this is very clear. While the NT and Netware comparison put NT Server 4.0 at a software cost of $4,949 while RedHat Linux 5.2 with a 3-incident support pack both direct from RedHat comes to $249. (By the way, the 3-incident support pack also provides support for Apache & Samba issues.) The end result is that NT Server 4.0 would have to outperform a Linux server by nearly *twenty* times to achieve a perferable price/performance measurement for NT Server. Even misconfigured to produce bad results, Linux continued to FAR under-cut NT Server 4.0 in the price/performance.
The Open Benchmark Invitation will also product even more damning price/performance comparisons. The reason is that single CPU systems will be included in the tests. The Mindcraft report was based on the Dell PowerEdge 6300. This system comes with a base cost of about $15,000. One you add the Mindcraft specs of 4 processors, 1MB cache, 4GB memory, a 10,000 RPM 9GB hard drive, eight 7,200 RPM 4GB hard drives, the Dell PowerEdge 6300 system has over a $35,000 price tag to it. But it isn't the PowerEdge 6300 that Dell pushes with RedHat pre-installed on. It is the PowerEdge 1300 with a base price of $3,000. Once you kick the specs on the PowerEdge 1300 to having 768MB and four 9GB drives (matching the Mindcraft 41GB storage on their four processor system), the price is still down at $8,000. Hence, four PowerEdge 1300's can be had at $32,000, over $3,000 below the MindCraft PowerEdge 6300 configuration. But, if four uni-processor systems can ourperform the price/performance of a quad-processor NT server 4.0, do you think that statistic will make it on Mindcraft's price/performance page?
It is too bad that Linux can not be configured to perform badly enough to provide Mindcraft with price/performance they can publish. It is too bad that Mindcraft can not be "unbias" when choosing what price/performance figures too publish.
im sure mindcraft needs a Lab! (Score:2)
computer systems and they have been in business for 14 years. And yet,
they do not own a lab in which they evaluate computers and conduct tests. Why?
Compare this benchmark round to their other tests (Score:2)
Their server configuration was a dual PII-333, 512MB. They report system Price/performance.
Mindcraft's NT vs. IntraNetware benchmarks:
Server Config: Compaq ProLiant 5500 single 500Mhz Xeon. They report software Price/performance. (see Novell's rebuttal [novell.com])
And then, sometime between last fall and now, servers needed 3 more Xeons and another 512 Megs of ram, and companies stopped caring about price/performance.
The truth emerges (Score:2)
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:2)
Am I wrong on this? What percentage of people out there have similar setups _currently or ordered) in shop that match the Mindcraft study?
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:2)
Windows2000 supposedly does. Not NT4.
> This means that the data is directly DMAed by the NIC card out of the disk cache or user-space memory buffer out to the wire without having to be copied to kernel space.
But guess what, you still have to touch every byte of data to do the TCP checksums. Zero-copy won't help you much there. (read today's kernel-list archives for more info)
> 2. NT (with Intel cards) supports Fast EtherChannel if connected to a Cisco switch.
So does Linux. (I believe you can do this with the Beowulf patches if you really want to) And Mindcraft won't be using this configuration, anyway.
> 3. Intel adapters on NT can offload the TCP checksum calculation to hardware.
Adapters which are used in about 0.1% of all servers out there, due to the fact that they cost as much as an entry-level server in and of themselves.
> I don't know if SP4 added that support to NT4 or not. It is definitely in NT5
It's not in NT4, which is what Mindcraft is supposedly testing.
> 4. If NT uses NetBEUI it will beat Samba. NetBEUI is much faster than NetBIOS over IP.
It also sucks. Can you say non-routable over the Internet and a general pain in the ass to set up over any sort of large area network.
Again it shouldn't be any part of this test.
Offensive emails won't change the outcome (Score:3)
and vulgar email on account of these tests? That
can only encourage him NOT to help the linux people.
It is fine to be upset about the test results, to
disagree with them, but sending offensive email
doesn't help anyone, and certainly makes Linux
look less professional, which is not what we want.
If the tests come out in favor of Linux, do you
think Microsoft employees will start sending Bruce
nasty emails?
Isn't it more interesting... (Score:3)
Jeremy Allison suggests some modifications... (Score:3)
I believe there is a clear chance of NT beating Linux -even properly tuned- in these benchmarks, but all the details surrounding the tests, including the hardware and the configuration chosen, don't smell very well... Too biased.
How Microsoft runs a web server (Score:3)
Quote: "How microsoft.com finally achieved 100% web site availability"
"Wanke: We needed to figure out why our servers were crashing, which requires them to be taken offline for debugging. For every machine, you have to have an IP address. This problem, for years, has been unsolvable."
"Weeks: Just running CHKDSK on a 36GB server, which is standard after a crash, can take up to three hours. We couldn't have a server fail, or do maintenance on a server, or be able to leave a server down and try to figure out why it went down without it affecting customers."
The solution? Surely it must be to get one of these huge mindcraft servers that are so fast? No?
"The microsoft.com Web site consists of several clusters of servers, each with a number of segments consisting of 4-6 servers containing mirrored content.
Up to 100 percent availability... Impressive.
Paul
Just drop it (Score:3)
People who are fighting to get a better benchmark test are nothing but Linux bigots. I remember a time when Linux was used for fun and hacking (not cracking). Who cares if NT shows better "results"? I sure don't. (Don't give me that "my company will look at these benchmarks".. you shouldn't work for a FUD driven company in the first place)
Lets face it.. you (/.'ers) are all anti-Microsoft Linux bigots who want free (as in beer) software and do not give a damn about free (as in speech) software. Anyone with a brain knows Linux is crap in many ways and is not the holy grail
Oh well.. go ahead and moderate this down. The truth hurts.. and it seems many moderaters can't handle the real truth.
Stupid benchmarks i think (Score:4)
These were some that i bothered to investigate.
ObjectCacheTTL = 0xffffffff.
This it to be used if all contents fit into memory and is static (hmm, and guess what the benchmark measures...yes, static performance.) It supposedly turns of the cache "garbage colllector". See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/sdkdoc/bdg/bdga
OpenFileInCache = 0x5000 = 20480 (max number of cached open file handles) Well caching up 20 k open filehandles should speed up serving static pages
ListenBackLog = 200 (couldn't find it on MSDN), presumably means that listen() can have 200 pending connections.
And what is my point ? well IIS was totally geared up to handle a website that fit in it's primary memory (anyone how big is the "site" in webbench?)
but,pardon me if'you've got a quad xeon running some kind of "enterprise" website wouldn't the amount of data be _much_ more than 1(or 4) GB ? And would hardly be static either, but generated from scripts,databases and whatnot ?
In humble respect of all computer gurus out there, i hope i haven't got this totally wrong
/Micke
This is a battle that Linux is designed not to win (Score:4)
I don't think we're going to find a 4x boost in the results. One has a good argument saying that Linux is *not tunable* for the reason that it has a decent design with reasonable defaults and there's not much that needs to be tuned! [If someone does a partial quote of that last line and puts it in a magazne, they are vermin.]
BTW, a few semi-related notes. If I was going for performance on a web server with Linux, I would chose an architecture far different from a monolithic 4-processor, 4-network box with RAID storage. I would go with multiple simple systems, which would allow me a path to grow that is not tied to upgrading to expensive bleeding edge technology.
If I wanted to do a performance based web server, I'd put all the files in a memory based filesystem. (Or have sufficient memory to make sure that I'm going to get a high cache hit rate.)
If I had to use drives, I'd use solid state drives (the kind with built in battery and automatic disk backup) for ultimate performance.
I would spread the documents (images, html, etc) across several machines. Additionally, I might have "www.myhost.com" assigned to several IP addresses so that each new connection is semi-randomly distributed to a new machine.
There would be no need for 4 x 100Base-T connections for each host. (BTW... are these going to the same network or different networks? Meaning... is NT doing *IP trunking* with these (all four 100base connectors "striping" output on the same network), which Linux won't? That could explain a 4x difference and wouldn't it be funny if one simple feature is all that this test demonstrated?)
The design given for the "web server" and "file server" aren't really good hardware choices for the job. BTW... two different services on the same box? Aside from the fact that it is bad design on the NT side, the two functions really require different configurations.
We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:5)
We are going to be standing there with our mouths open saying, "What happened?"
Folks, this is a battle we can only lose. Bruce has his LIVELIHOOD at stake here. NT is not going to lose no matter how open it may seem. Whatever it was that happened in that second test Mindcraft did gave them the confidence to do this test so they could appear to the public as "fairminded" and "open".
It ain't so. What can we do to prevent this? I hope noone important falls into this trap. It could be a black day for us all as the press trumpets "NT prevails in open tests where linux gurus try their best!"
Slippery folks. (Score:5)
Explained: The Microsoft/Mindcraft connection (Score:5)
Where did this specific hardware configuration come from? Microsoft. And Microsoft didn't just pull this configuration out of thin air. They've been doing all sorts of internal benchmarks with Linux systems to see what kind of numbers they could get. In their tests, I'm sure they've come across many favorable Linux comparisons.
But, as expected, they've found a few sub-optimal configurations for Linux which NT does well with. Microsoft has run many tests, and found the hardware that works the worst with Linux but good with NT. This is what explains the email from a Microsoft email address regarding the Xeon configuration... the email that Mindcraft said they did not send. It was done by Microsoft's internal testing.
Once they have the bad configuration, they need to send it off to another third party for "independent verification". Which, I believe, it isn't Mindcraft that was responsible for the low numbers... they were handed a benchmark that Microsoft ran ahead of time and already knew the results for. They just needed an outside party to go discover it for themselves.
This creates a simple smoke-and-mirror effect. Microsoft isn't blamed for this... Mindcraft is. And it disguises the real issue... it isn't software/OS tuning. It is hardware de-tuning done in advance by microsoft.
Consider that each piece of the system is pretty much a non-optimal configuration for linux. CPU, RAID disk, and probably the network. Probably one of these pieces (say, the 4x100base-t instead of a single gigabit ether) is really sub-optimal and replacing it would probably yield incredible results, but you've still got the additional handicaps.
But the Linux community has walked right into this one, thinking they can tune it out. Probably short of re-writing some kernel and driver codes, this piece of hardware isn't going to fly on anything *but* NT. (*BSD will also compare unfavorably.)
It probably is too late now to point this out -- they'll have the claim of "sour grapes" to use.
Re:Explained: The Microsoft/Mindcraft connection (Score:1)
Time to subpoena Microsoft emails? Now you've got me thinking there must be an email somewhere on Microsoft's network that reads something like: "Bill, we've finally found a hardware configuration that is optimal for NT and produces sub-par results running Linux. We're confident that if we use this configuration for the Mindcraft benchmarks, Linux will come out the stinker."
Wouldn't it be interesting to see if Linux could meet or exceed the NT benchmark results on cheaper hardware? My guess is that it would be possible for a couple of experienced Linux admins to match the NT results with less hardware. While we're at it, let's use the entire benchmark suite, not just the static HTML, as the representative from the publisher suggested. That, or use Squid to cache the content, as disk I/O seems to be one of the major problems.
Linus, et al, Input? Not according to AC. (Score:3)
If you think anyone had any real input into the second set of Mindcraft benchmarks, go have a look at AC's commentary, entitled "Bruce Weiner: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics":
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5631.html [linuxtoday.com]
Re:The Mindcrap Affair: the customer is always rig (Score:1)
Re:Golden Opportunity (Score:1)
Who will pay for it? Are the various commercial Linux vendors willing to pool resources and commission Mindcraft or some other third party to run the tests?
All of these tests should be run, not to prove anything about Linux vs. NT, but to make Linux better. That should be our goal. NT should be an afterthought.
Re:Is this test fair? (Score:1)
Right on.
The Linux team could set up clusters of workstations, etc., but i don't think that gets us any useful information. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea that the hardware may favor NT. If it does, it indicates a problem with Linux and we need to fix it.
Why doesn't samba work well with Win95? These are the questions we need to answer.
Re:Golden Opportunity (Score:2)
On the other hand, there is some merit to letting a third party pick the hardware. In this case, we will have the opportunity of finding problems with drivers rather than simply using things we already know work well.
If poorly supported hardware is used, however, it must be made absolutely crystal clear in the press release. Nothing less is acceptable.
If the Linux community is serious about doing this, it's going to take a lot of planning. Just because you may not be taking the trip doesn't mean you can't contribute to the effort. After all, the community has always been trumpeted as a strength of Linux. We ought to set up a web site, mailing list or something to coordinate all of this.
To those who make the trip: take good notes!
Golden Opportunity (Score:5)
Looks like Linux did not come out on top in their second test, and Mindcraft is willing to bring in Linux experts to verify the results.
My biggest fear with this is not that Mindcraft will try some underhanded trickery, it's that the Linux community will not accept the results unless linux comes out on top. That is just as bad as if Mindcraft tailored its benchmarks to favor NT.
This open benchmark is a wonderful opportunity for the Linux community to benchmark itself. AFAIK, no controlled experiments on high-end servers have been done to see how Linux stacks up against the heavyweights. If Linux comes out on top, great. But if not, we as a community have to accept that and learn from the process.
This is best chance yet to discover the bottlenecks in the kernel and several critical pieces of software. IMHO, the Linux experts should not go in with the goal of beating NT. They should go in with the goal of squeezing every last bit of performance out of the machine and using the resulting data to fix the problems.
Mindcraft and Microsoft (!) are donating resources to the Linux community in an effort to help us improve the OS. Let's grab the opportunity!
Re:Compatible hardware (Score:1)
We weren't told what brand of network card is being used (if it is a PNIC-based one the PNIC has transmitter lockup problems under Linux), but the AMI MegaRaid is still pretty aweful under Linux. The latest version at least will do concurrent requests (the last version serialized requests -- i.e., you could not issue a new SCSI request until the previous one had returned its results), but it is still very immature compared to the ICP-Vortex or Mylex drivers used by most Linux hardware vendors.
In reality, people wanting this class of machine are going to buy it from someone with a track record, like VA Research, they're not going to buy an off-the-shelf box and install Linux on it themselves.
Quad Xeon (Score:1)
But: It's an Intel box (sold by VA Research, the former Linux Hardware Solutions, Micron, and others), rather than a Dill.
Don't have to win to win (Score:2)
However, as long as they are using a RAID card which is known to perform poorly with Linux, it can hardly be considered to be a "fair" test. The Mylex and ICP-Vortex cards used by VA Research and others are known to be fast and stable with both Linux and NT, and would undoubtedly be what is installed in any Linux server of this size.
The network configuration may be a problem too, but we don't know enough about the network cards used to be able to tell.
An interesting thing is to see whether mod_mmap_static (a new module for Apache which pre-maps files into memory) would greately increase Apache's ability to serve files swiftly. Otherwise we already know that IIS trounces Apache soundly in serving files.
Remember, Linux does not have to beat NT in order to win. All Linux has to do is get numbers high enough so that Linux can be considered credible. If Linux is within 10% of NT in Samba performance, and within 20% of NT in Apache performance, Microsoft can tout those results all they want -- all it will be is free advertising for Linux. Remember, performance is only one reason for choosing Linux. The most important reason, FREEDOM, freedom from onerous licensing restrictions, freedom from being at the mercy of one monopolistic company, that reason is one that Microsoft will never "get" because Microsoft is about everything BUT freedom.
I agree wholeheartedly! (Score:1)
I expect that if you were to take the CD's and the supplied boot disks and tested NT vs Linux on uniprocessor machines, then Linux would do quite well! Then install and compile the latest 2.2 kernel and all the appropriate NT patches and test uni and multiprocessor configurations. And do the tests on more than one hardware configuration.
Evidently, we are going to need to have a project dedicated to testing and put out a Hardware Compatability List! Hardware that is either supported by the manufacturer or the manufacturer provides detailed specifications to third-party driver writers would likely appear prominently on the list.
Thank you EisPick (Score:1)
Stay on target.... Just a little longer... Staaaay on target!
Definately an option... (Score:1)
Now, let's say we refuse the test and Mindcraft releases the results of the second test showing favorable results for NT. They can say that they offered to retest but we refused. They win. Mindcraft's stock is going up.
If we refuse to do the tests and Mindcraft doesn't release the results of Test #2 because they are unfavorable to NT, Mindcraft will simply change their name and go on spinning for their customers. They lose a round.
Let's say we do the test and it is so narrow in scope that the hardware is prime terra firma for NT but less than savory for Linux. Also, the tests must be done using software current as of April 1999 meaning that there may be broken drivers. Our experts tune Linux to it's utmost yet Linux still doesn't perform as well as NT. They win. Mindcraft is back in business.
Let's say we do the tests and Linux wins. Someone already said that Microsoft could spin that too! "Linux is faster than NT if you can get Linus Torvalds to install it for you!" Linux wins but they still look good. Mindcraft's rep is restored.
Based on these scenarios... I say we should participate in the tests. They should be held at a neutral site or have them at a major trade show with the world looking on and installed from a clean machine. That way, if Linux loses, it'll be in a fair fight! I can't imagine Linux losing by much though if at all. I am confident.
MacDonalds is hiring (Score:1)
Seriously, this is a scam. Step back for a minute and you will see it clear as day.
RedHat 6.0 vs Windows NT Server 4.0 SP5 (Score:1)
Computer Reseller did a test with stock software, albeit much less hardware horsepower than the Mindcraft machines, and Linux came away the winner by miles.
Re:MacDonalds is hiring (Score:1)
Now of course if I were a Mindcraft tester, benchmarking Linux vs. NT, and we all got on a bus to Redmond where are test labs were located, I'd kinda figure out what was going on
Mindcraft does not understand... (Score:5)
Mindcraft has no credibility left. Worse, now they have an axe to grind because of how badly they were beat up in the mainstream press (ABCnews.com, Salon, Slashdot, etc). Any "benchmarking" they do from here on in should be ignored completely. If we can learn something from this, such as the need for better documentation, then at least thats a positive for us.
Linux vs NT4 TCP stack benchmark (Score:1)
There have been some excelent points made here, and I agree that the whols thing is quite biased, but we can only learn from it, no matter what the end result is.
Here is an evalutaion of Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2 and NT4 TCP stacks. http://www.marko.net/neteval [marko.net].
Evaluation was done with Netperf network performance tool. A small perl script was used to generate a series of test message sizes, beginning at 10 bytes, and with each additional packet being 10% larger than the previous until a maximum of 65000 bytes was reached. Each test was executed for 20 seconds, with a minimum of one second pause between the tests, in case there was still data in any outgoing or incoming data caches. The resulting files were plotted with gnuplot.
The tests were done by Mark Spencer, and questions regarding it should be directed to him, markster@marko.net [mailto]
Omissions in the rebuttals are interesting. (Score:3)
In particular, one accusation unrefuted is that Mindcraft's claims of having gone to the Linux community for help are simple lies. Any appropriate forum in which they could have looked for help is archived: a URL or two from Mindcraft showing that they looked for help would set the issue to rest. No such URL is given.
So if Mindcraft are honest they're doing a damn good job of making it look otherwise.
Just to emphasise the other key points here: (1) the hardware has already been chosen by Microsoft as that which best favours NT, and would not be chosen by someone depolying Linux. (2) Apache isn't designed to be fast at serving static HTML because static HTML servers are bandwidth-bound except during stupid unrealistic benchmarks. For such benchmarks Zeus is a better choice, also available for Linux. (3) It's very suspicious that it's the unpublished second test that we're being asked to reproduce.
We already know how these sorts of results look if a less biased organisation does them, because ZDNet did them. Linux blew NT away on every count, by every measure.
--
Re:Yes! Windows 9x client? (Score:1)
He stated this after the first Mindcraft test results were published. I think he also helped set up the Linux box in the second test.
Just the facts.... (Score:1)
It comes down to facts in the end.
Either Mindcraft is using hardware to favor NT or it isn't. Either they are allowing NT to be tuned by experts from Microsoft or they aren't. They are obviously using Microsoft's own testing facilities. I don't know that this is necessarily a bias. What equipment are they using? Does the site favor NT in any way? Aside from personnel on-hand, I don't know of any other benefit that could be gained. As long as Linux has its own experts and witnesses present to inspect the hardware, install and tune the software, and witness the testing of both machines, I don't see any problem with the test. The only sticking point for me is their ridiculous choice of hardware.
There are much more realistic and fair ways of conducting such a test. Perhaps each side should be allowed to build its own machine, given the same amount of money to do it with and the same source(s) to buy from. Any money not spent could be considered in the results. (It would have to be given appropriate weight in the results though, which in most cases wouldn't be worth a whole lot.) Then each side could tune its machine to meet basic real world requirements for a web server or whatever else they decide to test it as. This would be a real contest I think.
Re:The truth? (Score:1)
If the results come out the same, it will be for different reasons in a fair test so that we know the problems with Linux are valid.
The truth? (Score:2)
He said we would get beaten. He didn't say that the results of the first test were correct. There were many mistakes made in the first test. Whether NT would still win or not doesn't matter. We want a fair test. Microsoft knew about the test. They let Microsoft experts tune the NT machine. Why didn't they tell anyone in the Linux community about the test? Why weren't Linux experts allowed to tune the Linux machine in either of the first 2 tests? Don't try to pretend it was a fair test. It wasn't. Maybe we'll lose, but at least it will be a fair test so that we can see the real reasons we lost so that something can be done about them.
Re:Slippery folks. (Score:1)
Re:im sure mindcraft needs a Lab! (Score:1)
Re:Linux vs NT4 TCP stack benchmark (Score:1)
Don't lose sight of the goal (Score:1)
Sure, it wasn't easy to use. Sure, it wasn't even that impressive: it was slow, buggy, didn't have half the features my copy of Interactive had, and even my SCO box made Linux look like a cheap and nasty toy.
But I enjoyed Linux because it was FREE. Proper free. Free speech. It was liberating. I didn't care that Linux was crap. I was happy to see the rekindled interest in free software, proof that software didn't have to hide behind locked doors.
Now Linux has become just a face among many. So many people don't realise that Linux would be the better OS even if it isn't as fast. Even if more users choose MacOS or BeOS or Windows. Even if it was harder to use, or slower, or crashed more.
RMS recently gave a speech at the ANU where he expressed the same concerns. People using Linux should be exalted by the realisation that they have experienced something that was well on it's way to becoming extinct. Instead too many users think only of destroying Microsoft, of having an impressive number of users, or having elite new features and all the latest buzzwords. Don't get so impressed by the glitz that you lose sight of the goal.
Who are the Linux experts? (Score:1)
Mindcraft is a business, and as a business they only want the almighty buck. I seriously doubt they really care about publishing correct results.
Before the original slashdot.org story, I'd never heard of Mindcraft. Now I see why...
Re:Linux Expert (Score:1)
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:1)
Re:Iam scared of the result of the test (Score:1)
I'm hoping that what I suspect will come about, aka, Linux outperforming NT by a wide margin, this type of test has never been done to my knowledge before, and if it turns out that they CAN get NT to work better then Linux, it could be the end of a bad first few chapters in 'The Book of Linux'
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:1)
VA Research should offer optimal machine (Score:1)
This would be equivilant to the first machine being hand picked for NT.
The other serious concern is the stability - Rumors I have heard from a production enviroment indicate that NT will Never stay up longer than 49 days - due to bugs that still remain unfixed. Unfortunatly 49 days is a long time to wait for a reliability test, but with a sustained load, or repeated tests, I would be interested in seeing if NT could survive.
thttpd (Score:1)
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:1)
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:3)
The point is, they've obviously done exactly that - retested with all the patches and improvements we suggested, and still came out with abysmal performance. Otherwise they wouldn't (and neither would MS) be willing to get high profile people in there to do the tests again. This is a setup and it stinks.
However, it may, afterall, prove beneficial. If it finally gets linux-kernel started on some serious SMP improvements to the kernel then we'll all be better off in the long run (provided uni-processor doesn't suffer in the process...).
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Hmmmm. (Score:2)
(eg: If Mindcraft insists the expert uses GCC 2.6.3, you're not going to get the same results as if you used PGCC, regardless of how expert the expert is.)
What most people want... (Score:1)
What most people want is something that works (doesn't crash), give decent performance for the lowest cost... In real life if you want a server to run with Linux you probably won't use exactly the same hardware, than with NT (and maybe a completly different setup)... Most people are happy if something run with a minimum of maintenance, no crashes (reliability is much more important than speed) and is not too slow...
Linux does have many weakness, but so does NT... What a particular benchmark show is how a particular setup with particular result perform, it's not for all cases.
Benchmark could prove anything, but like someone said 90% of statistics are useless...
Re:Linux Expert (Score:1)
This seems to point at the fact that there will be "representatives" from all three sides present.
jaraxle
Could possibly be honest... (Score:2)
They did the first test badly. This gets them rapped in the press and they sit down and wonder if htey really did mess it up. They then do a second test, where Linux does indeed come out much better than in the first, although it may not have beaten NT.
They decide that to salvage their image they should have a crew of Linux Experts tune linux and rerun this second test that no-one has seen, hoping that they will not be able to do much better.
Possibly linux will come out on top in the third test and they can turn around and show the second test where they got similar results and everyone will know that they could in fact configure the linux systems, at least in the second test. If, on the other hand, NT comes out on top, their first test is validated and they are even happier.
Of course, this is so far-fetched that it isn't ever going to happen :-)
Logi
Re:a lose-lose situation? what're the odds? (Score:4)
If that happens we should point out that the setup is tailored to NT's strengths and Linux's weaknesses. Ask people to consider whether the hardware might have been chosen with that in mind.
Also ask them if they're going to be running these 4 processor, 4GB, 4nic machines in their businesses and point out that these results say nothing about how NT and Linux compare on more mundane machines.
Ask people to consider the following: Tests like these are expensive. MS has money, the Linux community doesn't. If Linux beats NT on some machines and NT beats Linux on others, you're never going to see test results for the systems where Linux is superior.
Last but not least we need to show that we don't sweep problems under the rug, we fix them.
--
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:2)
They should use Mylex, NOT AMI (Score:2)
Don't give Mindcraft back any credibility! (Score:5)
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5631.html [linuxtoday.com]
He mentions that we really should be benchmarking Zeus or a faster web server under Linux versus IIS if we want to find out how fast the OS can serve static web pages. IIS is the fastest web server for NT, so we should be able to use the fastest web server for Linux for the tests. If you want to compare NT versus Linux, then get the fastest web server for both.
If you want to compare capabilities, then use Apache, etc. Use the best product for the job.
Additionally, he does mention that we should use NT clients or at least a mixture of both, for the tests. At the company I did some consulting for, they are standardizing on NT. Microsoft's roadmap is all NT for the future. Why would you want to benchmark against a dead-end technology like Win9X?
Somehow I think these tests are rigged. Notice, Mindcraft only offered to rerun the tests after they ran a second one, which they didn't release the results of.
I think we need another party, that's neutral, to do some benchmarks, and take Mindcraft out of the picture altogether. They already admitted they fouled up, and they shouldn't be trusted to do the benchmarks again, because we will be giving them credibility they don't deserve.
Just my $.02
Ben
Continuous test...who crashes first? (Score:2)
Re:Golden Opportunity (Score:2)
The bottom line for a business is price/performance. I have always believed that the only fair kind of benchmark would be one where experts from both sides were given a lump of cash and asked to build the best system possible for that price. Microsoft would never go for that, though, because the Linux camp would get an extra $10,000 worth of hardware that the NT camp would have to spend on Windows NT licensing.
Since we are trying to test the software here, I don't think this is too much of a problem. When one is selecting hardware, one usually considers the software to be run. So let the software guys pick the best CPUs, RAM, and NICs that they can get for the money, and let them go after it.
I suspect that a smart linux camp would spend their $50,000 on a dozen uniprocessor Pentium IIs and a proxy server.
Later,
-jwb
Yeah, but our budget is smaller (Score:4)
We react so violently to Mindcraft, not because we think Linux will always beat NT, but because the tests were so obviously rigged to produce marketing data as opposed to objective decision-support data. We are concerned that some people might believe this tripe because MS has a bigger marketing machine than we do.
We are justified in our wrath because we know MS has tried to do this before, with their disastorous Astroturf campaign, and their all-but-outright-fake demonstrations in the antitrust courtroom. And, as in a trial, if you throw enough money and time at a problem, you can prove (or disprove!) any criminal charge.
To say that the Linux community spreads FUD the way that Microsoft does is baloney. We spread polemic, yes. We p*ss of reporters when they p*ss on our OS, yes. We don't lie to people and try to mislead the gullible.
It doesn't matter that NT might be better in one contrived set of circumstances, because we can as easily contrive a test where Linux does better - why don't we repeat the Mindcraft test on a couple of 486/66's from the PC graveyard, and see what happens?
Mindcraft's credibility is gone in any case, because the press has very neatly seen to it that they shall always be perceived as a cog in MS's marketing machine. Whether this is correct or incorrect, it is a likely scenario, knowing the prevailing winds in Redmond, and that is why we righteously rant. Take it or leave it.
No, Linux has already won (Score:3)
By the very fact of running the tests at all, they admit Linux matters.
By publicizing any part of this fiasco, they publicize the entire sordid history of it.
--
Does anyone else see it? (Score:2)
Conditions (Score:4)
Compatible hardware (Score:3)
The Mindcrap Affair: the customer is always right. (Score:5)
And why are they doing this? Because for a company like Mindcraft their credibility is their cash cow -- if their test results can't be believed, no one's going to pay for them. So before we linux advocates get ourselves all worked up over the opportunity to prove what linux can do, we must ask ourselves: "what's the ultimate goal of this test?". Or perhaps that should be phrased "who is the ultimate audience of this test?".
The answer, I believe, is that the ultimate audience, the target, of this 3rd benchmark is Mindcraft's collective future customers, including, me must presume, those customers from which Mindcraft might expect repeat business. In a word, Microsoft.
So, while I'm encouraged by the news that linux will get another run at the benchmark, I'm not entirely satisfied that this will be a completely unbiased test. Although it's encouraging that Mindcraft has opened the test to tuning by linux experts, they still have dictated the structure of the test, and it seems to me that there's room there for bias.
BTW, I visited the Mindcraft web site shortly after the publication of the initial test results. Their home page included some text that read something like (paraphrasing here) we work with the customer to identify their test goals, then design a test to produce the desired results. In other words, Microsoft got what they paid for. It seems interesting now, in the aftermath of the Mindcrap Affair, that those rather damning words seem to have disappeared from their site.
--JT
Re:Mindcraft's Motivation... (Score:3)
Agreed. The disallows one of the main features of OSS: Software patches come out at a much greater rate than they can (or at least do) than one sees from a Cathedral-type development model. Is it possible that MS has had a say in the testing format because they don't want end-users to get the idea that receiving patches in this timely a manner is a Good Thing? That wold only serve to strengthen the arguments in favor of the OSS development model. I smell more than just FUD directed at Linux here; it's also directed at OSS in general.
Does anyone really buy software like this and not apply patches on a fairly regular basis? Have I spent too much time in the VMS/DEC UNIX/HP-UX world (i.e. traditional ``industrial-strength'' OSs) that I'm missing something.
Jeezy Pete! If I found out that I could get a patch that ran my HSZs 3X faster or I could make my backups run 3X faster and I didn't apply it my boss would (and should) be bitching me out no end.
IMHO, this 3rd test is an attempt by Mindcraft to regain some bit of respectability after Microsoft left them twisting in the wind following the first ``test''. How long do you think it'll be before Mindcraft either changes the part of their Services web page that says:
doesn't apply to manufacturers any more or that they vow never to do testing for vendors again.
I get this feeling that Mr. Weiner is still smarting from the experience of working with Microsoft on the NT-vs-Linux ``test''.
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:5)
There is no doubt that the Mindcraft 4-way SMP SCSI RAID platform is designed to show NT in it's best light, at Linux's expense.
I strongly suggest to Linus, ESR and anyone else who is thinking of becoming involved that we insist on removing this last vestige of bias before agreeing to co-operate.
I would like to suggest that the tests be run on alternative platforms; instead of Mindcraft's chosen NT-enhancing platform, we should run the same or similar saturation tests on a more modest platform to show Linux's well-known performance advantage on cheaper hardware.
Another alternative platform would be a load-balanced 'cluster' of such cheap boxes all IP-spoofing the same server address.
I guess Linux would beat NT hands down in either of these alternative configurations.
Hopefully Mindcraft will see the advantage of doing what they are only pretending to do just now, and conduct a truly fair set of benchmarks, with all three configurations represented.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Is this test fair? (Score:2)
I don't see any problem with the restrictions on software and software tuning. I don't see any intrinsic problem with using a high end machine either. If Linux doesn't do SMP as well, this will be a good incentive to improve it.
The things I do see problems with are the clients, and the machine hardware. Ideally you would test samba performance with both windows NT and 9x clients, not just the configuration that favors NT. Also, an "Open Benchmark" should be composed of hardware that is comparably supported on both machines. I think that there should be some discussion over the hardware to be used. The hardware used on the first test, like every other part of the first test, is suspect.
I remember a previous thread of a previous article introduced the saying "Chase the dream, not the competition". I think it definitely applies here. I want to see linux stressed so that it will be improved. It doesn't matter to me if NT beats it, so long as the test is fair.
-OT
Mindcraft's "benchmarks" are meaningless (Score:2)
Similarly, the concern about SMP support also has much less relevance for Linux than for NT. Unlike NT, Linux can be scaled easily and cheaply by using multiple single processor machines.
Another crucial difference is that Linux has a growth path: you can get started with a small, single processor machine, and if your business takes off, you can get a 256 processor IBM system. That's because Linux uses POSIX standard APIs. NT, on the other hand, is, for practical purposes, stuck with the Win32 APIs, so you better like the four processor performance, because that's all you are likely to get for now.
And Mindcraft's survey doesn't take into account cost. How much does a four processor SMP NT machine cost vs. four single processor Linux machines? What about all the software licenses? What about all those other little bits of software NT machines need, you know, the ones that cost $50-$100 a piece? Even if NT were faster, what matters is cost.
Only fools make decisions on server platforms based on benchmarks like Mindcraft's. The best that a test like Mindcraft's might be good for is to weed out obviously bad apples. But given that both Linux and NT are already used widely as servers, they clearly pass that test.
Gotta love that corporate environment (Score:2)
And no corporate environment ever moves over to NT on the client side, nor do they use win98 clients. They immediately reformat their hard drives and install win95 on all those new boxes that they get. Thanks for that wonderful description of what happens in the "corporate environment".
Don't ask me why I fed the troll. I really don't know. I just can't let that ever-so-slightly credible argument go unanswered.
What if we play the M$ game? (Score:2)
What if we had uptime measurements? Or CGI site tests like slashdot (I'd like to see NT handle slashdot half as well as a real OS does!) What if we did CPU intensive Oracle database generated pages? How about other, non-web tests? It seems a shame that this community doesn't have the right to do anything but scream in newsgroups, just because we don't have the money.
Are there Linux experts out there who would put together lists of what would be best to test in our favor, and is there funding or a company willing to do such tests? I wonder...
Change the rules? (Score:5)
What about setting a $$ limit on the HW and let both "sides" choose the best HW for it's platform?
Hmmmm (Score:2)
Re:Slippery folks. (Score:2)
Does this mean that if Mindcraft didn't tune linux then the experts can't tune it for the Mindcraft Config? Or do the tunes/patches just need to be available? Little confused on the wording.
On the other hand - maybe they are trying...
A possible new test (Score:2)
Since these are supposed to be an enterprise systems, let's put them as close to the real thing that we can. The internet would generate the trafic and the internet would not know which system they are hitting. In the end we should see which system handles the load generated by the internet the best.
As for financing, mindcraft should set a budjet, or purchace all the hardware and software so that we are on a level playing field. This would be the constraning factor, (so microsoft could not come back with 50,000 quad PIIIxeon servers). This way there is no hardware de-tunning or anything else that can be claimed to offset the tests.
Basically a straight linux vs. microsoft challange.
As for the required data necessary for the test you can check the logs of the two servers(if they have not been tunned out) or check the log for the router.
If I was an enterprise manager I would not by a NT system an then install linux. I would base my harware on the system that I was going to implement.
That's real life, not a lab.
Re:The Mindcrap Affair: the customer is always rig (Score:2)
Technology reporters are so jaded by decades of Microsoft FUD that many are more inclined to believe posts on Slashdot than press releases from Redmond (or Redmond's surrogates).
The lesson to learn is to stick to the facts. If Open Source advocates stoop to fuzzification of facts, reporters will discount their assertions, too.
Demand a test on 486dx2/50 w 8mb ram as well (Score:2)
At a guess, that would be the 486dx2/50 with 8 meg of ram. Good luck to the windows NT team
The Third Alternative (Score:4)
This is to produce a Linux test on the same Mindcraft problem space. That is, solve the same problem (same Web site, same clients, same network). But do it on a Linux venue, and with Linux-friendly hardware. Invite Microsoft, invite Mindcraft, invite the press.
Don't duplicate the hardware. Use inferior hardware, where "inferior" means "posts smaller numbers or costs less". But an "inferior" part may have better Linux drivers. Some people have complained that the RAID controller isn't Linux friendly. Replace it with a cheaper unit that is Linux friendly. Others say that SMP is irrelevant to this problem for Linux, since the processor isn't the limiting factor. Go for a single processor, the same speed as one of the SMP processors.
The point here is not to do a head-to-head, but to post better numbers with cheaper hardware. Then we challenge Microsoft--not Mindcraft--to beat the Linux benchmarks on the Mindcraft problem and their hardware or less. We replace the "fair benchmark" with a "competitive benchmark". We replace the (weak) assumption that the test team is trying to be fair with the (strong) assumption that each side will pull out all stops to post high numbers. This is how sports teams compete (rather than having the refs measure how hard you can throw or how well you can catch, they let you do your best and simply maintain a fair venue). IMHO, Linux engineers can put together a Linux server that is faster than any NT server that NT engineers can create.
People have noted that this is an expensive machine to put together. For you and I, that is correct. For a company with a vested interest in the results, it's an investment. It's a better investment when the company can use the machine for real world applications such as Web service. Relatively sizeable guns such as Red Hat or VA Research can stand to turn an indirect profit from pulling this sort of thing off.
A Linux/NT bakeoff would actually benefit both sides (!). Once we blow their doors off with our numbers, MS will probably find a way to post bigger numbers. Then we tweak Linux, and post bigger Linux numbers. If MS posts bigger NT numbers by making NT a faster server, we have at least forced MS to improve their product. If MS falls down the trap of optimizing NT for this bakeoff and pessimizing it for the real world, we introduce another bakeoff test. OTOH, MS can keep us from optimizing Linux for this bakeoff by making new bakeoffs at any time--that way, they help keep us honest.
SMP is not really the issue (Score:4)
Linux, on the other hand, keeps more of its services in user space. This means it may suffer a little in this type of benchmark but it makes Linux an all around better application server. We are talking apples and oranges here.
To *win* Mindraft 3 we don't need to beat NT totally, just come close (which should be possible on a properly configured Linux box). This will show that the original test was a crock, and that Linux is still a much better price/performance buy.
Then we should go on to do REAL tests that show how Linux smokes NT's butt when you throw in CGI support and a mix of other net services.
Thad
Mindcraft's Motivation... (Score:5)
Mindcraft isn't interested in an honest test, they just want to show
(to the media) that they know what they're doing.. it's a PR game
plain and simple.. they want Linux people to put their stamp of
approval on something that they have no real control over...
Why the time restrictions? the Linux experts aren't allowed to use
any patch that came out after April 20th... One of the main points
about the original test was the unsupported RAID card used... so if
someone were to magically release a patch tomorrow that made that card
run 3x as fast, they wouldn't be able to use it.
By the terms in the paper, as soon as someone from the Linux camp
joins, they're bound to put their name on the PR sheet. (which is
essentially just a confirmation of their second test, which they have
already run and won't show to anybody.) Since Mindcraft has STILL not
levelled the playing field, I strongly urge a boycott of this 'test'.
If Mindcraft REALLY wanted to have an unbiased test, they would invite
Redhat and Miscrosoft to sit down and draw up a mutually agreed-upon
hardware list; that way no side is at a disadvantage.
When you're at war, you don't allow your opponent to choose the
battlefield unless you have no other option. We have another option,
which is not to fight. By allowing someone else to choose the
hardware, the Linux side is at a disadvantage. Don't give them more
ammunition against us.
high noon... (Score:2)
i really don't think that with the amount of dogma surrounding these benchmarks much good can really come out of the tests anymore. the amount of tweaking that'll be going on will remove these benchmarks from the realms on anything meaningful.
sure, i'd love to have Linus come install our web servers but that ain't gonna happen!
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:3)
On ordinary consumer hardware, yeah, NT isn't that stable. Also, remember that these benchmarks don't match the real-world. In the real world a lot of stuff occurs that doesn't occur during benchmarks or stress tests which can cause NT to BSOD. Also, for the benchmarking, NT will likely only have to stay up for a few hours.
Re:We're going to get our butts kicked (Score:5)
1. NT supports zero copy transmits out of the disk cache or the web server cache. This means that the data is directly DMAed by the NIC card out of the disk cache or user-space memory buffer out to the wire without having to be copied to kernel space. Linux (as of 2.2.7) does not support this (this requires changes to the Linux virtual memory code and to the networking code to support fragmented packets and locked memory).
2. NT (with Intel cards) supports Fast EtherChannel if connected to a Cisco switch. Linux does not. Fast EtherChannel, for those who don't know, allows multiple ports (up to 4) to be ganged together to behave as one virtual fat pipe (800Mbps with 4 100Mbps adapters running full-duplex, the usual configuration).
3. Intel adapters on NT can offload the TCP checksum calculation to hardware. Linux can not. I don't know if SP4 added that support to NT4 or not. It is definitely in NT5 (I worked on some code to take advantage of it).
4. If NT uses NetBEUI it will beat Samba. NetBEUI is much faster than NetBIOS over IP.
When I worked at Adaptec and we were competing against Intel for server tuned NICs I saw what NT could do. With 6 network cards set up with load balancing we saw over 500Mbps of throughput, and the server was less powerful than Mindcraft's. Intel wasn't too far behind us either. This was with NT4+SP3 on a quad 400MHz server.
Now, personally, if I had a choice I would almost always choose Linux over NT, but I'm just trying to be realistic. One of these days I need to sit down and hack some Linux networking code. Fast EtherChannel support would be a very nice addition to Linux.
-Aaron
Re:Offensive emails won't change the outcome (Score:2)
Linux people may have sent nasty notes to this poor chap because they felt a manifest injustice was done to the Linux community by the first test. Hey - he did go on record. He knew what was coming. Mindcraft are tiny - bet the publicity will double the size of their business
This third test seems a worthwhile opportunity. I sent a very positive message to him about it (not that he should care about my opinion).
Lets see how it goes - worst case is NT Server wins on performance so the Linux world gets a target to beat.
Patrick