Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Windows Server 2016 vs. FreeBSD 11.2 vs. 8 Linux Distributions Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by edwaleni View Post
    I just don't think its realistic to expect a general purpose operating system to be top shelf at everything. If that was the case, why do we have so many flippin distros of Linux?

    Windows is a Toyota Camry. It gets its people from Point A to Point B with a relative level of ease. If you want high perf Windows, get the V6 XSE. If you want to be coddled by your OS and have it do everything for you, get an Avalon (which is based on the Camry). If you want Windows to manage more data, get a Highlander (again based on a Camry).
    In most cases it can get damn close though. Most retards think that "omg look so much functionality, so much legacy cruft, clean it up only for the specialized task at hand!" but they won't understand that stuff that doesn't get loaded doesn't fucking hurt your performance.

    Windows is a fiasco though: it loads way too much shit automatically and not on demand (only as needed), especially in latest versions. I don't know about server Windows, never used or seen it used but my server experience is limited so...

    Comment


    • #32
      kind of nice to see Debian with its old software people tend to complain about do so well. Winblows nt3.5 was a nightmare , NT4 wasnt much better, a server with around 150 users needed to be rebooted once a week or odd things started happening. NT4 also had the service pack 5 nightmare where the service pack knocked out servers asap, they broke shit all over that day. Windows 2000 server was pretty good.The best thing that happened back then was when A worm was set to attack Microsoft, and they ran to get Linux servers to protect there windows servers funniest shit that ever happen. <This happened not long after the Bill Gates internal Memo that said "stop them" meaning Linux. Some years ago Debian Squeeze I believe it was, had a huge chunk of the web servers on the net, passing I believe it was cent OS, for the most installs world wide. Debian Squeeze was a Rock, there has not been a release that good again. It might be nice to see Devuan in some of these tests, I have an old laptop here and it runs much better than Debian on it.

      Thank you for the testing !

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Weasel View Post
        In most cases it can get damn close though. Most retards think that "omg look so much functionality, so much legacy cruft, clean it up only for the specialized task at hand!" but they won't understand that stuff that doesn't get loaded doesn't fucking hurt your performance.

        Windows is a fiasco though: it loads way too much shit automatically and not on demand (only as needed), especially in latest versions. I don't know about server Windows, never used or seen it used but my server experience is limited so...
        Windows Server is different now. Generally there are a bunch of wizards you go through to load certain services, and won't install what you don't want.

        In the bad ole days, yes, Windows desktop "leaked" stupid stuff into the server and people complained. (Does a server need DirectX? DRM? ) Today you can configure it completely without a GUI and strip it down even further. There are lots of 3rd party tools that help you take it down than even MSFT planned and it runs just fine. The IoT version of it doesn't even have a console.

        But some of these tests don't play into Windows strengths. PTS tests are mostly focused on how well an OS exploits hardware. And in some use cases, that isn't always the point.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by edwaleni View Post
          Today you can configure it completely without a GUI and strip it down even further.
          I've never even seen a Windows Server without a GUI. I know that you can install it like that, but I've never been in a place where they has a Windows Server and were able to use command line to manage it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            I've never even seen a Windows Server without a GUI. I know that you can install it like that, but I've never been in a place where they has a Windows Server and were able to use command line to manage it.
            Yes, you can have it just boot to a PowerShell prompt. The Windows old timers hate it because they like the GUI and mouse, which isn't a shock as they grew up on it. The cloud guys are like, "cool man" and fire away. One time I told an application guy to bone up on his PowerShell because the host was coming in naked, the response was "over my dead body". So some feel pretty passionate over their access to a GUI.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

              I understand that, but my impression is that in terms of stability Windows Server has improved exponentially since NT 3.51 but Linux is still ahead.
              Depends wholly against which Linux you would compare. Paid Enterprise Linux's, sure if you say so. Hobbyst/free distributions - results would range from wall to wall. Even something as widely used as Ubuntu could fuck up in regards of stability, usually after package upgrade..

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                Depends wholly against which Linux you would compare. Paid Enterprise Linux's, sure if you say so. Hobbyst/free distributions - results would range from wall to wall. Even something as widely used as Ubuntu could fuck up in regards of stability, usually after package upgrade..
                stability on what?
                Because I'll be honest, most if not all breakage in Ubuntu is on user applications, or GUI stuff, which does not belong on a server.

                Although yeah, I'd rather install a Debian or a CentOS than a Ubuntu Server or Fedora Server, you know, the whole point of the distro is being stable vs jack of all trades distro

                With OpenSUSE I don't have much experience on the server side, but from what I saw on the desktop side, I'd be willing to use OpenSUSE Leap on a server too.

                I mean it does not break even if I migrate from Leap to Tumbleweed, and then after a while I migrated a disk clone back again to Leap for testing purposes, and all worked fine. Try doing that with a 'Buntu.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  I've never even seen a Windows Server without a GUI.
                  Maybe you seen some, but you thought it's a different (more exotic) OS altogether. :P

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                    Maybe you seen some, but you thought it's a different (more exotic) OS altogether. :P
                    Powershell console would have been a very obvious hint about what OS that is.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Powershell console would have been a very obvious hint about what OS that is.
                      Well, it was a joke, since most people only recognize Windows by the GUI, so...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X