Linux
Hi,
I've bee ntold by someone in my organisation that Unix outperforms Windows to the extent that a single processor Unix box performs comparably to a dual processor windows box.
i.e. That 1 Unix processor = 2 windows processors.
Is this true?
by master3bs
Not according to Microsoft's website it's not. ;)
Seriously, I believe it depends on many factors. While I have read some reports that suggest unix or linux performs better; I doubt the ratio would be 2 to 1.
When it comes down to it; it really depends on what you are using your systems for. If possible, I recommend running both OS's on identical systems doing identical tests and see for yourself.
It is possible to setup tests say what you want them to say; which is why pro Windows sites will brag about MS apps while Unix/Linux sites will do the same.
I'm a newbie to open source so I can't speak much from experience about it yet; but I'm getting there. Check this site out for some more information
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
by jaqui
if you are using a standard unix server config, and a standard windows server config, yes it is possible.
the windows config has resourses wasted on things like remote assistance, remote desktop and a full gui that are absolute stupidity on a server.
you also have the higher overhead of the antivirus and software firewall in windows. unix firewall uses something like .03% of cpu time, no antivirus, unless you want to try to kill windows viruses.
for all practicle purposes, a 2 unix cpu = 3 windows cpu is probably closer to reality.
Depends
Most UNIX based computers run on RISC Based Processors instead of Intel Based.
RISC based are far more powerfull than Intel Based.
The fact of the matter is :-
If you want to run a mission critical application ie you are a bank, university, government department and want high availability and high reliability and performance then choose Unix.
During a presentation at the Nasscom-Gartner Summit, recently held in Mumbai, Gartner Analyst Mathew Boon said that RISC/Unix systems "will survive as a profitable, niche through 2010." Boon said RISC systems will co-exists with Intel 64-bit Itanium servers, in the high-end power-driven segment. "RISC/Unix systems will be used for large CPU complexes, while Itanium will be preferred for small CPU complexes," said Boon.
This means that RISC/Unix systems would continue to be used in 'Big iron' systems that use multiple processors and offer massive computing power. Such systems are generally high-availability, high-reliability systems used for critical tasks that run round the clock. There are three major players in this segment: HP, IBM and Sun. Eventually, Intel could also join this list as it gets into verticals, beginning with Telecom.
by jdgretz
I don't think I would ever go that far, but I like the 3:2 ratio.
What you will find is that you can use a far smaller processor to get the same apparent level of performance out of *nix when compared to Windows. For example - a sub 1Ghz Linux machine with 256Meg RAM will perform general office tasks (word processing, spread sheets, email, web surfing) just as well as a 2.6Ghz or so 256Meg RAM Windows XP machine.
Part of the reason for that is WinXP does not perform all that well with only 256Meg RAM where Linux is quite happy at that point.
My WinXP machine (3.2Ghz, 1Gig RAM)appears to run just about as fast as my 2.6Ghz 256Meg RAM Fedora Core3 box.
YMMV
jdg
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending