No announcement yet.

NT or Unix - Performance

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NT or Unix - Performance

    Can anyone help me?

    I want to buy a new server and using it for vbb.
    I like NT (2000) because i fine administration. Is it better to use linux on this machine? Is NT slower as an unix machine? And how much. And is it PHP or MySQL, that are slowlyer.

    Give some tests in the web between this system, where i can see the results?

    Thanks for your help.

  • #2
    Red Hat running Apache!!!!!!!!

    ...because Microsoft is EVIL!!! (all this coming from a Mac evangelist. hehe)


    • #3
      Unfortunately I've never EVER heard a single discussion on this topic where someone wasn't being biased - infact, as much as I praise Linux, I despise its supporters.

      The replies you no doubt will receive to this thread will begin going on about how unstable NT is (the most pathetic argument, the only instability I have EVER found with NT is with poorly written applications... not NT's fault at all) and that you can't fine tune it (again rubbish, not only is NT self tuning but everything it does is based in the registry meaning you can fully optimise it - right down to TCP/IP, every single parameter can be set in the registry).

      Personally I think both OPERATING SYSTEMS, ie Linux itself and NT itself, TOTALLY EXCLUDING any products you may run... are both just as capable. In a few aspects Linux is faster and more powerful, in other aspects NT is. So whichever you are more fluent in, I'd recommend that one - if you're buliding your own server, you are a FOOL to use a product you don't know inside out... you're opening yourself up to problems with maintenenace as well as hacking (for example you sound like you know how to set up NT properly, optimise it, plus secure it... how secure do you think you would be able to get Linux? - contary to all the claims, I find more information on holes in Linux than I do on NT).

      Just my two cents. As you can probably gather, I'm not biased towards either product - I happily play with both at home, however I know NT inside out but am not that way with Linux - so I'm better off setting up a server with NT (or 2000) than Linux. In a few years I expect that to be a different case.


      • #4
        Every operating system has holes. The difference is in a *fix release speed*. The power of open source is much more stronger then waiting for well-maybe-this-is-a-bug-let's-do-something-with-it on Microsoft side.

        W2k with IIS5 is NOT a bad product. I would say it's.
        Windows servers are a good choice for LANs.

        Red Hat running Apache!!!!!!!!
        RedHat is most spread Linux but it's not number one. Also, RedHat (company) is very slow when releasing bug fixes (but still faster then Microsoft) also, there's a little rule - if RedHat then version x.2.
        It is said when you really want to learn Linux, begin with Slackware. Many of Linux geeks I know began on Slackware and went over RedHat to Debian.

        NT / W2k will allways be slower with PHP and MySQL because both products were primarily written for Linux. You may configure, compile them to fit your needs. On Windows-based system you just run setup.exe(msi) and if you're lucky, you may adjust few options.
        I've been running my board for 2 months on W2k, IIS5. I switched to Linux and my users immediately see the difference. Performance highly increased.
        Last edited by PeF; Thu 8th Feb '01, 4:39pm.


        • #5
          I have NT4 and W2K servers and workstations fall over all the time, using M$ certified hardware. I have one that falls over fairly regularly doing just print and file.

          I'll disagree with the assessment that NT or W2K are very stable.


          • #6
            because Linux is l33t!

            ...but BSD is l33ter.


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shaman
              I have NT4 and W2K servers and workstations fall over all the time, using M$ certified hardware. I have one that falls over fairly regularly doing just print and file.

              I'll disagree with the assessment that NT or W2K are very stable.
              Yes there are if you know how to install and optimize them correctly.


              • #8
                The first time I used RedHat I was playing around with the themes in the GUI, after which I was never able to boot the thing again...

                I guess that means Linux is an unstable operating system for EVERYONE...

                Or maybe I had no idea what I was doing...

                I work with NT servers for a living, have been doing so since 1993 with NT 3.5, and I've never had a server bomb on me - I've had the odd workstation blue screen of death, but that was always the result of doing something stupid like removing the networking and setting it up again (converting from say Token Ring to Ethernet) which in the process replaced IPX with the original version and thus Lotus Notes caused a crash. Of course the sensible thing to do is to reapply the service pack, thus restoring the original version, though with W2K's slipstreaming that's not necessary.

                As I said I'm very open to Linux and becoming more and more interested, but what really puts me off is the childish "NT crashes all the time" claims. Imagine if I were to claim Linux is a totally unstable operating system, just how seriously would you take me? You'd no doubt call me a wanker... no different.


                • #9
                  Intec: If you want a OS which is nice too look and easy has a fine administration, then take windows.
                  If you want a stable und fast OS, then take Linux.
                  PHP & MySQL is under Linux much faster than under NT.


                  widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.