Running a server on linux vs windows
Author
What is the different of running a server on linux other then running it on Windows Server 2003?
Is one more stable then the other? Is one faster then the other?
Thx in advance,
Lordcorm
Well installing a base version of linux can make it so your OS doesnt have so much crap. Don't get me wrong windows can run apache just fine but i find that the memory usage of windows is higher than that of linux. I have run both before. I prefer linux installation from one of the packages. But if you are a windows user you can easily download easyphp which is a bundle of mysql php and apache2
Hope this helps
-Cory Fisher
Hope this helps
-Cory Fisher
Quote:Original post by CoryFisher
Hope this helps
Unfortunately, it really doesn't. Base Windows server memory consumption is not demonstrably higher for an equivalently configured base Linux server installation. Beyond that it's the applications and services.
Let's stick to provable facts, eh?
To be honest it kind of has to be. Windows has a whole graphical layer which needs to be kept in RAM/VRAM for fast access. The fact that one environment is more heavy can be seen from the differing minimum system requirements imo. An easy way to demonstrate it is by trying to get Windows Server 2003 running off of an old 486 and then repeat the same process with Linux. There's a certain overhead involved in my experience.
However in a professional environment you're very unlikely to see servers with so little RAM that it would make a difference. The main reason is cost usually and having developers who are used to working in a Unix environment. Everything is also based more around command lines and feels more integrated as an environment if you need remote access and can't use a graphical front end.
However in a professional environment you're very unlikely to see servers with so little RAM that it would make a difference. The main reason is cost usually and having developers who are used to working in a Unix environment. Everything is also based more around command lines and feels more integrated as an environment if you need remote access and can't use a graphical front end.
Quote:Original post by asp_
To be honest it kind of has to be. Windows has a whole graphical layer which needs to be kept in RAM/VRAM for fast access. The fact that one environment is more heavy can be seen from the differing minimum system requirements imo. An easy way to demonstrate it is by trying to get Windows Server 2003 running off of an old 486 and then repeat the same process with Linux. There's a certain overhead involved in my experience.
Does Linux running on a 486 provide the same functionality and throughput as Windows Server on its minimum requirement system? If not, then the comparison is stupid - all it proves is that Linux is more scalable downwards (not necessarily upwards) than Windows.
If you're choosing between Windows Server and Linux, then you have the hardware to run Windows. So let's stop introducing spurious hypothetical externalities.
Quote:Original post by Sneftel
Olu, perhaps you should read his second paragraph.
Yes, it tempers the irrelevance of the first, but why bring up the first anyway, given the criteria established? This isn't a generic Windows vs Linux thread where we trot out all our favorite features, flaws and misfeatures; this is asking the question of the comparative differences in running Linux or Windows Server 2003 (the alternative establishing the hardware baseline) as a server.
I realize my words were a bit strong. My bad. I'm in CTO mode this week, because of a position I'm angling for, and I evaluated his comment in that light. My bad. I apologize, asp_.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
