 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Red Hat Linux trumps Microsoft Windows in power test | |
|
||
| Time: 10:32 EST/15:32 GMT | News Source: SearchLinux | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Raleigh, N.C.-based Red Hat Inc. has touted its "green computing" image following a recent independent test that ranked Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5's power efficiency over Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 on three different hardware platforms. The server tests rated power consumption on IBM, Dell and HP machines in three conditions: active mode optimized for power savings, active mode optimized for performance and quiet mode. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 4 of 4 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Saturday, July 05, 2008 03:57:55 PM |
| Its disappointing that they did not examine FreeBSD, as I've run into many who run *nix-based server farms who consider FreeBSD a much more secure, manageable, and robust server platform than RHEL. While AIX may have better fault-tolerant and virtual-drive disk management capabilities, it's hard to ignore what BSD has done to isolate update effects on existing system configurations, as well as the robustness of its ports collection. |
| #2 By 92283 (70.66.69.111) at Saturday, July 05, 2008 04:27:59 PM |
|
"This isn't a particularly well-conducted test.
Most notably: - They measure power draw under load without measuring performance. A configuration that simply went slower and required more power in total (due to greater time requirements) to complete a task would thus "win" their test. - They used the "power saver" instead of "balanced" profile for 2008 server, which is a poor choice for a server under any circumstances and may even use *more* power to complete a given job because it can prevent the CPU from spiking to max performance to finish a job quickly. - Their "load" test was scripted email generation not something actually likely to make a modern server work like a file or database server load generator. I guess if it was virus-scanning and spam-checking vast piles of mail... - They don't seem to know that CPUs, including server CPUs, supported the HLT instruction for reduced CPU power draw well before frequency and voltage stepping arrived on the scene even for laptops. Servers haven't run on full-tilt power max when idle for a *long* time, but they seem to think they do. - They fall for the all-too-common pretty but misleading non-zero-y-origin graph trap. - Their results aren't really very significant anyway. Given their poor methodology I'd say they're close to useless." http://lwn.net/Articles/285373/ |
| #3 By 9589 (76.6.29.196) at Monday, July 07, 2008 01:42:58 AM |
|
Once again, open sore misses the fact that it is applications that drive which operating system is chosen. Little thought is given at which OS is "green."
By the way, many medium to large companies are using virtualization. Virtualizing applications using 4 and 8 processor dual and quad servers with as much as128GB+ of memory and enterprise class storage. Workloads are added to these servers until they are nearly maxed out - running consistently above 80% CPU usage and capturing the OS and the applications entirely in RAM when possible. In the above situation, this "study" has little or no value. |
| #4 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Monday, July 07, 2008 07:32:46 AM |
|
I didn't see anything in the article in the article having to do with "which operating system is choosen", but I anxiously await you data comparing the current deployment of Windows Server 2008 verses RHEL.
And I do agree with your second point; it's a shame the adverse effect that many virtualization products have on the power consservation capabilities of the virtualization platform's OS. It would sure be nice to minimize power consumption on a 24-hour per day, 7-day per week basis, as oppsed to the 9-hour per day, 5-day per week basis that, due to the benefits of virtualization, we enjoy now. |
