Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Glenn Ree » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Hi,

Can someone advise me here?  Does NT outperform Linux running Samba
for file and print services?  I am assuming the same specification
machine.

Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.

I know of one organisation with a configuration like this and they are
using Windows NT.  They are thinking of purchasing another 10
computers but they are told they will have to increase the RAM in
their server in order to be able to handle the extra load.

How would Samba compare in a similar situation?  Would it require a
RAM increase?  I have heard that Linux is more memory efficient,
partly because it doesn't have to tie up memory in managing a GUI
interface if you don't want to.  Is this correct?

And then I have heard that Linux doesn't have a multi-threaded TCP\IP
stack and therefore can't compete with NT.  What do the people out
their think?

Regards
Glenn.
====================================================

 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Stuart Fo » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:> Hi,

> Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
> card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
> running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.

> I know of one organisation with a configuration like this and they are
> using Windows NT.  They are thinking of purchasing another 10
> computers but they are told they will have to increase the RAM in
> their server in order to be able to handle the extra load.

For 10 extra PC's I don't think they'll need extra RAM.  What reasons were
given for the memory upgrade?

 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by The Contac » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Hi,

> Can someone advise me here?  Does NT outperform Linux running Samba
> for file and print services?  I am assuming the same specification
> machine.

> Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
> card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
> running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.

I don't know which one will do the best, but Samba will have no problems
on that configuration...

Quote:> I know of one organisation with a configuration like this and they are
> using Windows NT.  They are thinking of purchasing another 10
> computers but they are told they will have to increase the RAM in
> their server in order to be able to handle the extra load.

That's the disadvantage of Windows. Each 'surplus' needs more power,
more memory. It's one of the things that NT (and others) lacks: good
memory handling (and I can feel a thread coming up :-P

Quote:> How would Samba compare in a similar situation?  Would it require a
> RAM increase?  

No, not if you use the PC solely as a Samba server (not as a workstation
or something similar).?You should configure it wisely though.

Quote:> I have heard that Linux is more memory efficient,

True, true.

Quote:> partly because it doesn't have to tie up memory in managing a GUI
> interface if you don't want to.  Is this correct?

And again true.

Quote:> And then I have heard that Linux doesn't have a multi-threaded TCP\IP
> stack and therefore can't compete with NT.  What do the people out
> their think?

I heard that MS's TCP/IP is a little bit different to the normal TCP/IP.
It's still compatible though.
I don't know the concept of multi-threaded TCP/IP, but I would be
surprised if Linux' TCP/IP would be less than MS's, since TCP/IP under
Linux is thoroughly tested and adjusted, and because Linux is more
networking-based that NT...

--
The Contact
"Knowing everything is impossible. Trying to is not."

 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Craig Kelle » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Hi,

> Can someone advise me here?  Does NT outperform Linux running Samba
> for file and print services?  I am assuming the same specification
> machine.

> Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
> card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
> running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.

Up until 2 months ago, we had a Pentium 166 with 64MB of RAM serving
400 users across 100 client machines (mostly Windows, but some are Mac
users as well).  Here's the old configuration:

   http://inconnu.isu.edu/~ink/new/links/computing/links/gront/

Now we have web-based e-mail, virus scanning in the e-mail and a whole
host of other goodies with the new box.

 [snip]

--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.


 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Woofber » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> Up until 2 months ago, we had a Pentium 166 with 64MB of RAM serving
> 400 users across 100 client machines (mostly Windows, but some are Mac
> users as well).  Here's the old configuration:

>    http://inconnu.isu.edu/~ink/new/links/computing/links/gront/

> Now we have web-based e-mail, virus scanning in the e-mail and a whole
> host of other goodies with the new box.

I say, good show there, boy!  :-)

As I've been saying all along, a competent network administrator can
support a heterogeneous population of operating systems ...  while NT
administrators whine and moan about having to support Macintosh.

--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
Consider God's handiwork: for who can make straight
that which He hath made crooked?" Ecclesiastes 7:13

 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Stuart Fo » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





> As I've been saying all along, a competent network administrator can
> support a heterogeneous population of operating systems ...  while NT
> administrators whine and moan about having to support Macintosh.

> --

Mac support isn't hard to implement under NT.
 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by sfcyb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00








> > As I've been saying all along, a competent network administrator can
> > support a heterogeneous population of operating systems ...  while
NT
> > administrators whine and moan about having to support Macintosh.

> > --
> Mac support isn't hard to implement under NT.

Then why all the whining??? And if they have to support some Unix NFS,
Watch out.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Leslie Mikese » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:

>Can someone advise me here?  Does NT outperform Linux running Samba
>for file and print services?  I am assuming the same specification
>machine.

>Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
>card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
>running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.

>I know of one organisation with a configuration like this and they are
>using Windows NT.  They are thinking of purchasing another 10
>computers but they are told they will have to increase the RAM in
>their server in order to be able to handle the extra load.

More RAM is always better.  For a small configuration like
this I doubt if you would see a noticable difference between
Linux/samba or NT as a file server.  However if you run
additional services (email, web server, proxy server, etc.)
I'd expect Linux to be more efficient and also easier to
manage remotely.  (And those other services are available
at no extra cost).

Quote:>How would Samba compare in a similar situation?  Would it require a
>RAM increase?  I have heard that Linux is more memory efficient,
>partly because it doesn't have to tie up memory in managing a GUI
>interface if you don't want to.  Is this correct?

Yes, but a file server is mostly i/o bound and giving it more
buffer RAM will usually be a good idea anyway.

Quote:>And then I have heard that Linux doesn't have a multi-threaded TCP\IP
>stack and therefore can't compete with NT.  What do the people out
>their think?

This is irrelevant on a single-CPU machine and/or single NIC machines.
And the 2.4 kernel is supposed to fix any deficiency compared to
NT in the multi-CPU, multi-NIC case anyway.

  Les Mikesell

 
 
 

Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?

Post by Stuart Fo » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00









> > > As I've been saying all along, a competent network administrator can
> > > support a heterogeneous population of operating systems ...  while
> NT
> > > administrators whine and moan about having to support Macintosh.

> > > --
> > Mac support isn't hard to implement under NT.

> Then why all the whining??? And if they have to support some Unix NFS,
> Watch out.

Who's whining?  NFS again isn't that difficult, it's just that the products
out there do bring some problems of their own....

Stu

 
 
 

1. Samba Performance vs NT Server

I have a server running NT Server and Redhat 5.2.  I took turns
copying dozens of files totaling 900MB to the server from a Win 98 box
on the network.  It took 25 minutes to copy the files to the server
while it was booted up under NT, and it took an HOUR to copy the files
while it was in Linux.

Why is Samba under Linux so much slower?

--


http://www.archonmedia.com/antique_forum

2. DIP trouble

3. performance: linux/samba vs nt vs novell

4. Kernel Upgrade 2.2.19 Problem

5. Samba performance vs. Windows NT - a tuning issue?

6. Why isn't find colder?

7. Linux vs OS2 vs NT vs Win95 vs Multics vs PDP11 vs BSD geeks

8. Looking for html viewer w svgalib!

9. NT<->Samba performance depends on _size_ of NT environment variables!?!

10. performance comparison of samba, NT server, and netware

11. Solaris 2.4 Intel vs. Windows NT as a server for PC LAN

12. Samba vs NT 4.0 server - SMB disconnect

13. Samba vs NFS (Re: When is Samba faster than NT)