Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Oct 2010 22:28 UTC, submitted by tux68
Thread beginning with comment 446538
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The limited information makes it a meaningless metric..
by rom508 on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 12:53
in reply to "The limited information makes it a meaningless metric.."
I kind of agree. Not only they replaced Windows for Linux, they also replaced the major components of stock exchange software. I think the latter has more impact on performance.
I have a feeling Linux is not the major contributing factor, i.e. replace it with BSD or Solaris and you're unlikely to see major performance drop.
Over the years all operating systems have been tuned for maximum efficiency, it's not the kernel developers, but application developers that write inefficient and buggy code.
RE[2]: The limited information makes it a meaningless metric..
by Kebabbert on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 13:59
in reply to "RE: The limited information makes it a meaningless metric.."
RE[2]: The limited information makes it a meaningless metric..
by gnufreex on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 21:15
in reply to "RE: The limited information makes it a meaningless metric.."
RE: The limited information makes it a meaningless metric..
by Lennie on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 17:20
in reply to "The limited information makes it a meaningless metric.."
This article has more information:
http://lwn.net/Articles/411064/
(you need to be a subscriber or wait 2 weeks)




Member since:
2006-05-26
There's only a couple things made clear:
1. It replaces a Windows system while using Linux
2. It's faster than the old system, at least while they tested it
The article says very little about implementation details: then again, most readers wouldn't be remotely qualified to understand that.
This doesn't really speak either way to Windows inferior performance/reliability or Linux's superior performance/reliability as it does for the implementation of the two trading systems.
Until they measure while controlling for the system-dependent variables, it means... little. And, of course: chances are the system hasn't had all the same conditions thrown at it that the old system has during its existence: who is to say with the limited amount of real-world testing that it will be more reliable? That remains to be proven with reality. For all we know, there's some obscure Linux kernel bug that'll be hit, that will take it down unexpectedly: I've seen it happen in past versions of the kernel with massive databases pounding the system.
I'll come back to this if someone can post a followup that documents what all the variables are, and if the Linux system uses the same logic as the Windows system, or if it is a completely different implementation/design written by different people, but until then, this is merely a PR fluff piece.