Zen Bastard (jimbojones) wrote,
Zen Bastard

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Technogeekery: Windows 2000 Server vs FreeBSD 5.0 / Samba 2.2.8

Yesterday, I set up a test network in my War Room to learn how to put a FreeBSD fileserver on an Active Directory domain, using the Active Directory rather than local accounts to handle password authentication. (I also got ACL's running under FreeBSD and Samba both, for those of you who know what that means / care.) It was an interesting little journey, but I got there, and now I'm ready to do it for a production network next week.

This morning, while waiting idly for an appointment I needed to run, I decided to do a little experiment: I'd compare the performance of the Windows 2000 Server and the FreeBSD 5.0 / Samba machine. I've done this sort of thing before, but on considerably newer hardware and running considerably more processes, and using Windows 2000 Professional instead of Server. And in that case, the machines were close to identical, although the Win2K box did have a noticeable hardware edge. (Despite which it lost thoroughly and miserably.)

This time, though, things were different. For one thing, both competitors are brand-new squeaky clean installs: each was put together from parts, formatted (or newfs'ed) and installed as of early yesterday afternoon. But more importantly, L04th1ng (the Windows 2000 Server), is actually a pretty capable machine... but Mule (our scrappy-but-pitiful little FreeBSD box), is downright laughably outdated and outclassed in all respects when it comes to the hardware department, as you can see below.


Windows 2000 Server

FreeBSD 5.0 / Samba 2.2.8


Athlon Thunderbird 900MHz

Pentium-2 400MHz




Hard Drive: 

Maxtor 40GB, 7200RPM, ATA/100

Western Digital 6GB, 5400RPM, ATA/33

Network Interface: 

Intel EtherExpress Pro/100

Intel EtherExpress Pro/100

Which is why it's so fucking hilarious that when the only thing happening on either machine is copying 600MB of files from one machine to the other, despite a truly brutal hardware advantage, the Windows 2000 Server machine got its ass HANDED to it. And please do note that the brutal spanking depicted below is NOT simply due to the Windows 2000 Server paging memory to disk, and can NOT be fixed just by adding more RAM - it's still got 272 MB free as it is.


Please, microsoft... get the fuck out of the operating system business, and just make GUIs. You're good at that.


  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded