[bf1942] To Andreas: Linux vs. Windows
"Einar S. Idsø"
esi at itk.ntnu.no
Sat Feb 18 05:27:10 EST 2006
Mikael Bååth wrote:
> On 2/15/06, "Einar S. Idsø" <esi at itk.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>Windows server is at least 10% more efficient than the Linux server.
> Impossible. You must have the wrong information here. Perhaps the
> windows version of the BF2 server is 10% more efficient than the linux
> version of the BF2 server. Windows cannot under any circumstances
> compete with linux or unix. If someone has done such a test, the
> windows box must have been really tweaked for the test, and the linux
> box must have had all the wrong configs. Even with that, I strongly
> doubt the Windows server could give 10% more FPS when running.
> One fact which I always use when talking about windows servers and
> linux servers. If you join a local linux server, you get 0 ping. If
> you join a local windows server, you get 10-20. And, by Local I mean
> on a correctly configured LAN with 100Mbit and not much other traffic.
> Not to be confused with localhost.
> Forget about windows. Wherever you heard it from, it's propably based
> on tests biased by m$ funding. It always is.
> Mikael "FireLynx" Bååth
> European Battlefield 2 League founder.
I am sorry, I must have been unclear in my first post. What I meant was
that if you run a BF2 server under Windows, it will require in the area
of 10% less CPU-power than the same server running under Linux. If the
server uses 80% CPU on average under Linux, it will use closer to 70%
under Windows. This is based on tests done by BF2 server providers
throughout the world, most of which actually lean towards using Linux
but have been "forced" to use Windows because of the increased
performance. This difference is quite significant since it enables
cheaper CPUs to be used with Windows servers than with Linux.
More information about the Bf1942