[cod] Linux vs. Windows
Chris Adams
chris at fragzzhost.com
Sat Nov 20 13:01:27 EST 2004
That's another point :-). Linux will use any available RAM to cache
things, so really RAM usage should be measured with cache excluded
# free -m
total used free shared buffers
cached
Mem: 3043 2305 737 0 95
1151
-/+ buffers/cache: 1058 1984
Swap: 1996 0 1996
See the second line? That shows that with the cache taken off, there is
in fact nearly 2gb of free RAM.
---------------------------------------
Chris Adams
Fragzzhost
T (07005) 964 855
F (07005) 964 857
www.fragzzhost.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Fredric Ollikala [mailto:Fredric at onlinecenter.se]
Sent: 20 November 2004 17:52
To: cod at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [cod] Linux vs. Windows
Well Linux uses the memory in another than Windows does, so it appears
that
its using more than than it really does. If you boot a Linux machine
with
512 MB of RAM and let it be, you will see after a while that the memory
usage is high even though no program/process is running. Type "top" and
press ctrl+m to see memory/cpu usage in Linux.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken " <ken at moonridge.net>
To: <cod at icculus.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: [cod] Linux vs. Windows
> Not true, I can show you screen shots of my linux box vs windows box.
My
> windows is using less ram than linux. Also all extra services can be
> turned
> off in less than 1min, and then you have a screaming box. Please don't
> give
> people false information.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edwin Terlouw [mailto:edwinterlouw at tiscali.nl]
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 9:32 AM
> To: cod at icculus.org
> Subject: Re: [cod] Linux vs. Windows
>
> Also Linux uses a lot less ram, windows uses aroudn 64 meg of ram,
linux
> doesnt. Windows also runs auto applications who aren't even neccesary.
>
> Ow and sorry for my bad english ;)
>
> Cheers
> Edwin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "hotrod deathtoll" <hotrod_death_toll at yahoo.com>
> To: <cod at icculus.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [cod] Linux vs. Windows
>
>
>>I haven't seen any real numbers on what kinda
>> performance either OS does running a game but with
>> Linux you can eliminate the desktop overhead that you
>> would normally have in windows (= more potential
>> performance).
>>
>> The other main advantage is every Linux box in it's
>> own right is a server. Out of the box Linux can serve
>> as SSH, FTP, HTTP, RSH, IPTABLES (firewall), etc...
>> You get my drift I'm sure. Being a Linux dude for me
>> it's just easier to admin remotely and that's why I
>> use it.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --- Michael Neikes <michael at neikes-net.de> wrote:
>>
>>> As not beeing the hardcore Linux guy I ask you to
>>> give me some short
>>> informations about your experiances.
>>> At the moment we have a ded. Linux server and we are
>>> concidering to get
>>> another one. Windows would be a lot easier for me to
>>> administrate, so
>>> therefore the question.
>>> Does a Linux Server has really so much more
>>> performance as a Win Server?
>>> Please do not reply if you only want to say "Win
>>> sux!", or to tell me that I
>>> am making it to easy for me.
>>> I am just not able to have a comparison between a
>>> Win and a Linux machine
>>> for Games (on the same Hardware)..
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
>> http://my.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Cod
mailing list