SUMMARY II: comparing solaris 8 to windows 2000

I also got a reply from Gary Mulder , he pointed to a
nice paper about nt vs solaris 2.6 thread comparison. 
He also reminds that windows 2000 is an enhancement on
NT and says that it was at one time going to be called
NT5.
Below is his message and following that, my first
summary.

Thanks Gary, thx to all again.

---From Gary---
Mehmet,

I found this, which may be on interest:

	http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/zabatta98thread.html

There's a downloadable PDF of the entire paper
-----

--- Mehmet Mirat Satoglu <mehmetmirat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> My question was :
> 
> Hey Guys,
> 
> I want to compare Solaris 8 to windows 2000,
> especially from thread management point. But this is
> a
> technical comparison, not like some magazine's
> reports.  Could you refer some whitepapers or give
> me
> an idea about it?
> 
> We have a Java application which runs on Solaris 7 ,
> but windows 2000 runs 10 times faster. We will test
> it
> on Solaris 8, but we have no clue about the reason
> and
> I dont think that Solaris 8 is 10 times faster than
> 7.
> 
> Also, is there a way to compare an intel 900 Mhz
> PIII
> cpu to an ultrasparc-II 400 Mhz ?
> 
> Thanks for the replies from :
> Don Mies
> Dave Foster
> John Martinez
> Joe Fletcher
> 
> According to results in www.specbench.org, sparc
> cpu's
> are not fast even with 1 GB memory. P4 and Alpha
> cpu's
> have much better results. What Don said about
> missing
> functionality was interesting. I did not try to
> compare solaris on intel to x86 cpu's because we
> prefer to use OS's on their natural architecture. It
> can be helpful to do hardware-only comparison.
> 
> Don wrote the mail below and sent me some documents
> about multithreading :
> ---
> Other than writing a set of benchmarks that do
> essentially
> exactly what your target application is going to do,
> I
> don't
> know how to do this.
> 
> However, one thing you need to keep in mind (if it's
> applicable)
> is that Windows 2000 (or the other variants of it)
> often don't
> scale well.
> 
> We had an application that operates with thousands
> of
> threads
> and Windows rolled over and died!  If your
> application
> uses an
> unusual amount of any system resource, check it very
> carefully
> before concluding that Windows is faster/better!
> 
> If you are primarily concerned with thread
> management,
> there is
> a LOT of functionality missing in Windows 2000.  For
> instance,
> there is no way for one thread to kill another! 
> Windows requires
> all threads to terminate before the process does or
> you will leak
> system resources and eventually need to reboot your
> server, etc.
> Don
> ----
> Dave Foster wrote :
> 
> The only article I know of on this is:
> 
>      http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/
> 
> but this is Windows NT and not Win2K.
> 
> I've seen 140MHz Sparc systems blow a 233MHz Intel
> system
> out of the water...you can't just go by cpu speed.
> 
> As for your java app, I'd look into cache issues,
> how
> you are accessing your data, whether your problem is
> cpu
> or disk i/o bottleneck, etc..
> 
> Dave Foster
> ---
> 
> John Martinez wrote :
> 
> What would be interesting is to compare Windows 2000
> to Solaris 8 Intel
> platform on the same hardware.
> 
> You should ask this question on the Solaris on Intel
> mailing list as
> well. I'm a member along with some really bright
> folks
> and some folks
> from Sun that are responsible for Solaris on the
> Intel
> platform. Check
> out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisonintel
> 
> I don't have any real answers for you, but I run
> both
> types of machines
> at work. One is a Sun Ultra10 workstation, 512MB
> memory, 440MHz CPU.
> It's running Solaris 8 4/01. The other is a Dell
> Precision 420M with 
> two
> P-III's running at 733MHz with 512MB memory as well.
> It's running
> Solaris 9 Intel Beta (I'm beta testing at work). The
> P-III kicks major
> butt over the U10! I don't have hard numbers, but it
> works great. I'm
> sure it helps that the Dell is running 10kRPM
> Ultra160
> SCSI drives as
> well, while the U10 has 7200RPM IDE drives in it.
> 
> -john
> ---
> 
> And Joe Fletcher :
> 
> Look on www.specbench.org for CPU comparisons. The
> Ultra-II is 
> basically the
> slowest mainstream chip on the market and possibly
> the
> weakest java 
> engine
> around. AFAIK the current speed kings are the Alpha
> EV68 1GHz and maybe 
> also
> the new IBM RS6000 stuff though I think that sort of
> cheats by having 
> two
> processors per chip. A P4 or Athlon is also well up
> there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> sunmanagers mailing list
> sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
>
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com