Linked by snydeq on Tue 8th Mar 2011 23:54 UTC
Windows Grizzled Unix vet Paul Venezia tips his cap to the Windows Server crew, suggesting that the lessons of Unix history have not been lost on Microsoft -- and that's one reason why Windows Server has become so complex. 'The Windows Server of today has more in common with Unix than many people want to admit. The upside: more stable servers, greater scope of services, better adherence to standards, and Microsoft's newfound willingness to work with its competition. The downside is that Windows has become more complex than Unix from a management and administration point of view,' Venezia writes, even if he still sees some Windows admin practices as prime examples of how not to administer servers.
Thread beginning with comment 465668
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by kvarbanov
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Mar 2011 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kvarbanov"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

All he was saying is that Windows Server is usually not thought of as good as Unix and uptime is one indicator of server stability.

We have one Web server that can deal with 100% CPU load at peak periods and it doesn't fall over.

The London Stock exchange problems were probably more to do with the fact it was running on SQL Server 2000 which is far slower than newer versions than anything else.

Edited 2011-03-10 20:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kvarbanov
by Kebabbert on Fri 11th Mar 2011 11:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kvarbanov"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

All he was saying is that Windows Server is usually not thought of as good as Unix and uptime is one indicator of server stability. We have one Web server that can deal with 100% CPU load at peak periods and it doesn't fall over.

I can run numerical computations at 100%, if the computer runs without crashing - it proves nothing.

The London Stock exchange problems were probably more to do with the fact it was running on SQL Server 2000 which is far slower than newer versions than anything else.

The major problems with LSE was it crashed a lot. And also, the latency was to high. Exchange systems need low latency. Ive heard from several sources that Windows latency is too high (something with the TCP/IP stack)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kvarbanov
by lucas_maximus on Fri 11th Mar 2011 11:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kvarbanov"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The only thing I think we have found out is that you have an attitude problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2