Re: performance & you-know-who

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
11 May 1999 15:45:28 -0700

In article <linux.kernel.XFMail.990509042941.jeremy@goop.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>On 09-May-99 Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
>> I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the "working set in
>> memory" thing basically makes a nonsense of their claim that this is an
>> "enterprise-class" setup.
>
>Their original setup only had ~16G per OS, which is stupidly small.

16gb is stupidly small?

Oookay.

16gb is still an awful lot of data, really, and it's certainly large
enough to slop comfortably over the edge of however much memory you
can fit onto a PC box.

In any case, it appears to be a dataset where NT can win comfortably
over Linux, so whining about it won't help. (And isn't whining
about it traditionally what Microsoft does when faced with a
benchmark that shows them in a bad light? Wouldn't it be more
productive to not whine but instead fix the problem?)

____
david parsons \bi/ ObKernelContent: Umm, none, really. Sorry.
\/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/