Very Computer

Hello,

I am wondering how Linux's memory management compares to Windows'. I
know that Linux can run on less hardware, but can it also cope with
doing more things at the same time?

In theory Windows can let you do any number of things at a time, but it
is obvious when it runs out of RAM and has to use the swapfile
intensively because everything slows to a snails pace. Obviously, this
must happen with Linux too, but can you run more things before the
slowdown than on Windows?

I am curious how the two compare with both
a) Dormant applications (Running but not doing anything)
and
b) Multiple applications working at the same time.

Thanks,

--
Andrew Arbon

http://www.gatekeeper.demon.co.uk/

I can only tell you from 'a user's' point of view as I haven't studied the
code yet.  But I can tell you that one major reason I am running Linux
instead of Windows is because of the slowdown with Windows on my
AMD586-133Mhz that I simply don't see with Linux.  Many times I would be
downloading and trying to Browse at the same time under Windows and have
it all slow to a crawl (sometimes the Browser or the downloading would
stop entirely until I was finished with the other applications...other
times my machine would just lock up entirely).  It got to the point I was
afraid to do anything else while I was downloading, or I was browsing
under Windows.  Even a dormaant application that would wake up for an
instance would tend to stop what I was running for a second.  I imagine if
I was running a Pentium II-266Mhz, I would probably never see this under
Windows.

However, under Linux, I have found that I can Browse, talk on IRC chat,
and download 2 files from different ftp sites at the same time without
seeing any slowdowns.  I am just now getting confortable with being able
to do more than 1 thing at a time and not have my system stop or sometimes
lock up....in fact it is a joy to see my system keep running at full
speed.  Eventually I'm going to get a much better system (maybe
dual-Pentiums) and I'm really going to be looking forward to the
performance.

Just my opinion,
--Persona

Quote:>This is joke right? Sheesh, Linux runs around Windows when it comes
>to loads.  What may kill a Windows box running a service, Linux
>just goes and goes.  Try running a HTTP, DNS, SMTP, POP, NNTP
>server with 16MB of RAM.  Works for one of my clients.
>Last time I checked, it hasn't been rebooted in 20 months.

Earlier this decade, I worked at a company that was running
18 websites (at least a third of them for household-name
companies) on a '386-16 with 8 megs of RAM and a 40Mb disk.
They were using FreeBSD, but Linux delivers pretty similar
performance.  Oh, and it was doing DNS and mail too. :)

-Dan

--
Dan Birchall, Vice President, Digital Facilities Management
132 Kings Highway East Suite A-1, Haddonfield NJ 08033-2008
609-429-4777 - FAX 609-429-1481 - http://www.digitalfm.com/
Internet/Extranets/E-Commerce/Consulting - Spam Delenda Est

AFAIK Windows (NT) makes very liberal use of the swap file even if all
running processes would fit into only a fraction of available RAM.
Linux uses all of your RAM before even thinking about swap; this is the
main reason people say Linux is faster (it is).

Quote:> intensively because everything slows to a snails pace. Obviously, this
> must happen with Linux too, but can you run more things before the
> slowdown than on Windows?

In my experience, Linux can handle a lot more.  With only a few things
open, NT starts to get really slow.

--
Tim Kelley

504.243.4682

Quote:>AFAIK Windows (NT) makes very liberal use of the swap file even if all
>running processes would fit into only a fraction of available RAM.
>Linux uses all of your RAM before even thinking about swap; this is the
>main reason people say Linux is faster (it is).

There was a great thread on this a while ago.  Some guy with NT had
something like 256 MB of RAM, a 2 MB swap file, and could not start Word
as it would complain about lack of memory.  He complained to Microsoft,
who replied that a 2 MB swap file was not wise.  IMO, Linux's use of
RAM vs NT's makes it much faster switching tasks, but I THINK minimizing
apps in NT relegates them to the swap file, which may not be too bad
an idea for most users (how many times do we say that and NT in the
same sentence).

Regardless I use Linux exclusively at home and love it.

Tyler

  No, Dave, he meant that Linux requires less hardware, say
32 MB of RAM as opposed to 64 for NT.

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:53:01 +0000, Andrew

Huh?  Linux runs on at least Intel, Sparc, Alpha, ARM, and PPC.  

Dave Cook

: On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:53:01 +0000, Andrew
:
: >I am wondering how Linux's memory management compares to Windows'. I
: >know that Linux can run on less hardware,
:
: Huh?  Linux runs on at least Intel, Sparc, Alpha, ARM, and PPC.  
:
: Dave Cook
:

You're miss interpreting the post, it meant lower powered
hardware, not fewer platforms
Mark

Quote:>:
>: >I am wondering how Linux's memory management compares to Windows'. I
>: >know that Linux can run on less hardware,
>:
>: Huh?  Linux runs on at least Intel, Sparc, Alpha, ARM, and PPC.  
>:
>: Dave Cook
>:

>You're miss interpreting the post, it meant lower powered
>hardware, not fewer platforms

Heh-heh, the old "less vs. fewer" distinction that even many journalists tend to
*up today. I would have said, "can run on less-powerful hardware" or "is less
resource hungry." Actually, I would have said neither, because I think that is yet
another Linux myth. Sure, barebones Linux can run on low-powered hardware. So can
DOS. But when you start talking about GNOME-Enlightenment or even KDE, and run office
suites like Star Office, you probably need at least as much horsepower as does the
Windows-MS Office combination, in order to get similar response.

I understand the new kernel (2.2) performs quite a bit better than earlier linuxes,
but I haven't had a chance to try this first-hand. Anyway, I'd like to see some
scientific evidence that a Linux with all the options (power windows, power seats) is
any less demanding on hardware than Windows.

--
John De Hoog, Tokyo
http://www.veryComputer.com/

Me not read to good today.

Dave Cook

Quote:>DOS. But when you start talking about GNOME-Enlightenment or even KDE,

I agree with you about GNOME/E and KDE (though you've picked the worst
possible combo for GNOME).  However, with something like Window Maker I
believe Linux/X is indeed faster on lighter hardware.  And KDE or GNOME will
have to offer a lot more before I find it that much more useful than just
Window Maker + my favorite apps.

Dave Cook

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:44:41 GMT,

 brought forth the following words...:

If you want to compare no X linux with DOS, I think you'll be disapointed
in DOS< no command line history, tab completion, etc, heck, dos doesn't
even compare very well to bash+emacs, let alone all of a non-x distro.
 On the other hand, MSDOS will run on 8088, standard Linux won't.

Quote:>I understand the new kernel (2.2) performs quite a bit better than earlier
>linuxes,
>but I haven't had a chance to try this first-hand. Anyway, I'd like to see some
>scientific evidence that a Linux with all the options (power windows, power seats) is
>any less demanding on hardware than Windows.

Well ,all I can give is personal observations, loading netscape takes about
the same amount of time, as that is mostly a hw IO issue I think, but
running a compile in the background, the general feel and responsivenes goes
to linux, _Unless_ the app is statically linked to motif. Then it's a dog
under anything other than optimum conditions. But GTK+ seems to be real snappy.

 I run top, emacs, cpuload, sometimes a compile, and a cd ripper in the bg all
the time, unless I switch virtual desktops (something that I don't think
W/NT can even do stock.) I don't even notice the load, even though the
cpuload is at near 95%. If there is heavy disk access, then doing something
that adds to the disk queue is noticable. But playing hexplode is unaffectd.

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
        Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

MSDOS doesn't have command line history or tab completion, don't be fooled
into thinking all implementations of DOS are so poor. I agree that linux
without X is far superior to DOS. But also remember that if you're talking
about MSDOS, don't just say DOS, because there are better versions of DOS out
there that have features to make them bearable (And actually, 4dos does a
better job of command line history than bash, imo).

Quote:>MSDOS doesn't have command line history or tab completion, don't be fooled
>into thinking all implementations of DOS are so poor.

Quite true.  I'd take DR-DOS with 4DOS over MS-DOS any day.  I was thinking
about this on my way into the office today, and decided that although there
may be fewer applications available for my Linux/X system than there are
for MS-Windows, I'm glad to not be using DOS (except for New Deal Office
'98, which I haven't gotten around replacing with Applix or whatever) any
more.  Back in my DOS-only days, there were a *lot* of programs out for
DOS - and when I think back, I don't miss 'em.  I can't think of any DOS
graphics program that I'd trade GIMP for, as an example.

-Dan

--
D Birchall, VP of Technology, Digital Facilities Management
132 Kings Highway East Suite A-1, Haddonfield NJ 08033-2008
609-429-4777 - FAX 609-429-1481 - http://www.digitalfm.com/
Internet/Extranets/E-Commerce/Consulting - Spam Delenda Est