• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Takes More Advantage Of your Hardware

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

triflux

Disabled
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Location
New York
I was disagreeing with my brother again. He thinks that Windows takes more advantage and uses your hardware better then linux.

If anyone would like to write any comments disproving him that would be nice. I would enjoy printing it off and shoving it in his face thanks
 

David

Forums Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
He's right.

lol Childish.

Linux makes better use of memory - it will use all free memory as buffers/caches etc. It also allows you greater control over what processes use memory etc.

The only thing that windows kicks linuxs butt at it multiple IO requests - Linux cannot cope with loads 'n' loads as well as windows.

Linux also makes better use of disk space - defragging Linux disks is not necessary.
 

Visidex

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Well what do you mean by "takes more advantage" and "uses your hardware better"? A lot of the linux drivers are written by the community and there are a lot of incomplete drivers that certianly could be better. Some hardware is missing major features, stability, etc. What hardware are you comparing here?
 

XWRed1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
The only thing that windows kicks linuxs butt at it multiple IO requests - Linux cannot cope with loads 'n' loads as well as windows.

This is funny.... happens to be one of the big things that servers do, are you saying Windows would be a better server? Care to provide specific examples? I know I haven't had any problems with this myself...


no sorry about there we were only comparing CPU speed stability RAM and HD

So... this is why I get a higher fps in Q3 in Linux than in Winxp? Is this why Linux is more stable than the 9x line? Is this why I can get along a bit better with less ram in Linux than in Windows? Is this why I can create a very useful Linux install that fits on a floppy?

Please elaborate instead of offering vague assertions. I suggest you start off by asking your brother "Why?", then post his answer here.
 

David

Forums Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
XWRed1 said:


This is funny.... happens to be one of the big things that servers do, are you saying Windows would be a better server? Care to provide specific examples? I know I haven't had any problems with this myself...




So... this is why I get a higher fps in Q3 in Linux than in Winxp? Is this why Linux is more stable than the 9x line? Is this why I can get along a bit better with less ram in Linux than in Windows? Is this why I can create a very useful Linux install that fits on a floppy?

Please elaborate instead of offering vague assertions. I suggest you start off by asking your brother "Why?", then post his answer here.

I'm not sure about the IO requests thing - I remember reading an article about XP vs SuSE Pro - it said that there was a bottleneck somewhere in the kernel. I can't remember the exact details.
 

rugby

King of Cats Senior
Joined
Feb 2, 2001
Location
Chicago, IL
From what I've seen, any *Nix based system has insane I/O capabilities. I've not compared it to a Microsoft-based solution, but maxing out our network with data transfers is maxing out our network. I don't see how it could get any faster.
 

David

Forums Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
rugby said:
From what I've seen, any *Nix based system has insane I/O capabilities. I've not compared it to a Microsoft-based solution, but maxing out our network with data transfers is maxing out our network. I don't see how it could get any faster.
I'm not totally sure what IO in the article refered to. I'll see if I can dig out the article.
 

XWRed1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
I think I remember seeing a link to that article elsewhere a while back, and I also seem to remember people pointing out that they weren't Linux experts, and seemed to be fabricating a few articles.

I mean, besides whats true or not, logic would dictate that Linux is better at i/o just because of all the hype around it, and because its more of a server-oriented system, a place where i/o performance is important.
 

David

Forums Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
XWRed1 said:
I think I remember seeing a link to that article elsewhere a while back, and I also seem to remember people pointing out that they weren't Linux experts, and seemed to be fabricating a few articles.

I mean, besides whats true or not, logic would dictate that Linux is better at i/o just because of all the hype around it, and because its more of a server-oriented system, a place where i/o performance is important.

You are probably right, I'm just getting confused or the article was inaccurate :confused:
It does make sense that a server OS has to be good at IO.
 

chaim79

Registered
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Location
S/W Wisconsin
I think I understand what David was refering to, there was a benchmarking test done by some bigwig (zdnet or the like) where they compaired RedHat 7.1 (running whatever default kernel) running apache (latest version at the time) to a server running Win2k with the latest version if IIS comparing the request load each could handle, (hits per.... something) the linux box topped out about 10% to 20% lower then the win box. They "traced" the problem to the way the kernel handled I/O requests.

I'm not sure if I can find the artical, it was a while ago when I ran accross it. And I'm not sure if the problem still exists, if I remember the artical correctly they did state that the kernel makers were aware of the problem and were working on improving it. This is all from memory so please forgive errors.
 

XWRed1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember that article. I believe the exact problem was that Linux didn't scale too well on multiple processors with the 2.2.x kernel series.

That has been resolved with the 2.4.x series.