Amiga.org

Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => General Internet News => Topic started by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 12:15:32 AM

Title: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 12:15:32 AM
For those who are interested in the 'Windows VS Linux' saga...

Statistics from Netcraft (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/15/windows_server_2003_approaching_100000_active_sites_8000_sites_switch_from_linux.html)

quote]A number of sites were seen to be switching to Server 2003 before its official launch but, in the three months since the launch the number of active sites has increased by over 300 per cent, Netcraft reckons, and now stands at 88,400. And around 6,000 of these have sitched from Linux, - quote from 'The Inquirer' (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10517) [/quote]
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: KennyR on July 17, 2003, 01:42:39 AM
I'm not sure what to make of these statistics. Virtually every web site I visit is running on Linux, some flavour of BSD, or Solaris. I've only encountered one that uses IIS - Microsoft.com itself.

I really don't blame them, either. The Windows system arcitecture is totally unsuitable for running a long term server. It may have protected memory, but it still has the old shared address system problems. Windows users might be lucky to run some weeks without downtime. Linux users regularly report uptime in the years. Add to this that Linux is extremely powerful and open-source, meaning you can make whatever fixes or modifications that suit you. (Insert usual Linux vs Windows blah here, but you know it makes sense.) I know that if I ever needed to set up a router or a server, Windows wouldn't even be an option.

The only advantage Windows has is that its easier to use. Linux is not a system for ease of use and never will be. But apart from that, a company would have to be crazy to opt for Windows - unless "coerced" by Microsoft. I guess you all know M$'s tactics by now.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: DethKnight on July 17, 2003, 06:37:43 AM
[qoute]I'm not sure what to make of these statistics.[/quote]

ditto
and what proof do we have that netcraft is a 100% unbiased and independent source of this information....

pasted from the Inquirer link...
Quote
looks like it has had to re-boot every day since switching from Linux to Windows Server 2003.



curious example I'd say
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 06:50:38 AM
Quote
The Windows system arcitecture is totally unsuitable for running a long term server. It may have protected memory, but it still has the old shared address system problems.

Shared memory architecture is only applicable for Windows 3.11/Win16 and NT kernel level services.

Different sides will argue different points of view.  

As this link illustrates http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Uptime+Windows+2003&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Belial6 on July 17, 2003, 07:15:51 AM
While I do believe that Linux stability as well as MS instability is generally exagerated, and I have run across hundreds of sites that are run from windows boxes, here is how I interprete the statistics presented...

The vast majority of small web sites don't care what platform they are running on as they are just putting up a few static html pages.  The 8k sites that "migrated" from Linux to Windows are primarily of that nature.  Sites where the creators neither know or care their platform, and just want an http server for their static html files.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 07:34:08 AM
Quote
and what proof do we have that netcraft is a 100% unbiased and independent source of this information....

To keep things into perspective refer to  http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 07:38:03 AM
@KennyR, regarding uptime for the top ten servers, refer to
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters?tn=june_2003&reverse=0

Linux and WinS2K are fairly close in regards to uptime. Personally, I’ll use FreeBSD as my server OS.  

Refer to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
(For the rise of the quiet achiever FreeBSD)
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: opi on July 17, 2003, 09:13:41 AM
a) holly wars are boring
b) since it's first raport, and w2k3 is new product it's easy to gain 300%
c) i won't trust company that trusts microsoft :)
d) windows won't work on Pegasos/Amiga. Linux/*BSD will.
e) ;-)
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: norm on July 17, 2003, 09:35:27 AM
I don't think these stats are much good. Hosts like Fasthosts with 11,978 active sites running Win2003 is just crap. Fasthosts own ukreg.com (a domain name registrar & host) which means most of the sites listed are forwarded/redirected to other sites  running whatever os.

EDIT: Like any stats these things can be distorted and may not reflect an accurate picture. /EDIT

Cheers,

Norm  :-)
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: bhoggett on July 17, 2003, 09:51:14 AM
I love it when people scream "fix" every time they see someting they don't like.

As has been pointed out, Windows Server 2003 is relatively new so it's relatively normal for it to make big gains quickly. It also happens to be the first Microsoft Server solution that's actually affordable, which may well explain some of those 8k or so switches from Linux.

As for the Netcraft stats being "biased" or "inaccurate" it would be nice if people actually did some research before making those accusations. As far as I can tell, Netcraft simply polls the servers and determines what they are running. It doesn't matter if the domain name is registered with a company that runs IIS or whatever, because it's the web server itself that is polled.

It's too early to say if these stats represent a trend marking a turnaround in Microsoft's server fortunes.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 10:17:05 AM
@opi
a. No one has forced you to read the news topic.

b. Via Linux/MOL, one could run SoftWindows 95. SoftWindows uses the official MS’s Windows source code. Careful with any of the generalisations.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: opi on July 17, 2003, 10:22:22 AM
@hammer

  re a) sure, noone can.
  re b) it's emulator, not the real thing(tm)
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 11:42:35 AM
Quote
Not after my experience.. I really doubt i could manage over a year uptime even if i let that box stand there doing nothing...

Don’t forget the sample size...
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: ikir on July 17, 2003, 11:53:16 AM
Quote
I don't think these stats are much good. Hosts like Fasthosts with 11,978 active sites running Win2003 is just crap. Fasthosts own ukreg.com (a domain name registrar & host) which means most of the sites listed are forwarded/redirected to other sites running whatever os.

Silly Microsoft :-D
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 17, 2003, 02:26:25 PM
Quote
re b) it's emulator, not the real thing(tm)

Note the use of the official MS Windows source code i.e. recompiled for the PowerPC processors i.e. for Win16/Win32 API acceleration.  The said product is not quite like SoftPC (classic whole box JIT emulator).  

The techniques involve with SoftWindows 95 is better than Amithlon/ AmigaForever/WinUAE (which is just a classic JIT emulator). SoftWindows 95 is fundamentally similar to MorphOS’s Abox (i.e. native APIs layers with emulated CPU).

SoftWindows 95 is a fully licensed Microsoft product(specifically targeted for MacOS users). Note that the late MS Windows NT 4.0 Alpha Edition includes DEC’s FX32 (X86 layer)…
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: DethKnight on July 17, 2003, 03:29:18 PM
I have yet to see in this thread where someone screams "fix"

Also I have yet to see where formal accusations of bias have been declared in this thread.

Maybe my reading skills are not selectively filtered enough.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: KennyR on July 17, 2003, 03:48:22 PM
Quote
While I do believe that Linux stability as well as MS instability is generally exagerated...


I would say not. Linux is pretty much bombproof. It's nearly impossible to crash. Linux IRC channel chatter usually composes mainly of uptime competitions ("I been up 306 days!" "Heh, that's nothing, I've been up 412!").

Then again, my Windows XP box seems to be stable until it gets heavily loaded, then it loves to throw fatal blue screens. And if its left on for several days, memory fragmentation will eventually render it too slow for anything but a reset button push.

Not that I can somehow compare this to server operations in any meaningful way, but if there is a myth about stability/instability you can at least see where it came from.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Tomas on July 17, 2003, 04:34:39 PM
....
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Tomas on July 17, 2003, 04:40:26 PM
Quote
Linux and WinS2K are fairly close in regards to uptime.

Not after my experience.. I really doubt i could manage over a year uptime even if i let that box stand there doing nothing...

My debian box did 280 days something or so, until lightning hit the electrical lines causing it to reboot.
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: mrpigthe2nd on July 17, 2003, 05:30:47 PM
I agree that windows can be a bit useless sometimes but my job is maintaining a vast number of servers and processnig machines. I have a couple of NT4 boxes with over 3 years uptime and 2 win2k boxes that have gone over 2 years. These are webservers, database servers and one thats just for file storage.

I have used linux a bit and not had any problems with it, my 2 test ones have been up for a few months quite happily.

Windows is best doing dedicated tasks, if you start running too much on them and playing around (ie let software developers near them), then they can cheek you :)

Darren
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: DanDude on July 17, 2003, 06:28:13 PM
Their numbers are going to change when they get a load of this!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/tech/main563635.shtml
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Waccoon on July 17, 2003, 11:40:07 PM
I'm not a big fan of Linux because I don't personally maintain a server, but I have to admit that every Windows-based server I've used has been slow and has lots of connection problems compared to Linux/Apache solutions.  The only thing I really hate about Linux is that names are case sensitive, so you have to use capitalization very carefully in your HTML, which is pretty stupid.  Other than that, I wouldn't want my webpage hosted with Windows.

As for that link, DanDude, I personally think you have to be pretty stupid to buy an OS the instant it's released.  It disgusts me how many millions of people bought Windows95 on the release day.  I'm not surprised, no matter how often or rare such a cracker attack might be on a Win2003 server.

Trustworthy computing...  *snicker*   :-D
Title: Re: Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux
Post by: Hammer on July 19, 2003, 03:00:02 AM
@KennyR
For BSOD to happen within Windows XP, some of your kernel level drivers/files/hardware is considered unstable.  

From my experience with our work server (which stores the application source codes), our up-time is 99.9 percent. We run Windows NT 4.0 Server on Pentium 4 @ 1.6Ghz, Intel 850 chipset (genuine Intel built board) with 1Gb RDRAM.

From my personal experience, I haven’t encountered any BSOD with ASUS A7N8X Deluxe**** (Rev 1.04) /AthlonXP combination, but I did encountered serveral BSOD with MSI-6330** (with BIOS V3.1**) (VIA KT133A class chipset). Both set-ups have at least 512Mb RAM.

**VIA audio/driver issues. BIOS updated to V3.6.
****BIOS versions from 1002 to 1004 (400FSB support).