Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: performance & you-know-who | Date | 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/
| |