Xeon vs Opteron and Linux vs Windows

June 13, 2006 – 8:40 am by Adnan Hodzic

First fight Xeon vs Opteron

I actually had a server running on Opteron, I’m prolly lying but I think it was dual. Anyways, if someone would actually ask you what is this servers platfrom you would have to push that AMD Opteron out of your mouth.

Now to say it right in the begining I’m not AMD fan at all, but neverthless. Intel has announced that its new server chip named “Tulsa” for now more info on:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/09/intel_tulsa_pull/

As you read the first line you’ll catch something like this “as it desperately tries to catch-up with rival AMD.” Excuse who’s trying to catch up with who? Intel’s trying to catch up with AMD? In my opinion AMD will never be anything, but for script kiddies and people who play a lot of video games. In that sector Intel is being stomped, but servers … I dont think so.

Back to the Opteron story, yea it was good and all, but it’s main advantage was price, it was “expensive” it was completely
affodrable. The thing I didnt like about it the load, load avergage was never below 3.xx 3.xx 3.xx. But it was doing its job just well, I’ve never experienced major outages our anything like that. But price was
and still its biggest plus. As well as it is for most AMD’s.

I would even stick to Opteron if I was Xeon dual user before, which never had outages or anything. During that time believe or not, I was so impressed with Dual Xeon that I even looked at catalogues to see how much would Dual Xeon cost me.
You know just have it out of plain fun standing right by you, as a server of course.

Right now I’m on Quad Xeon 3.06, which is doing enourmous amounts of jobs and various entries, and it’s current: “load average: 1.18, 1.33, 1.09” Also I for some reason Opteron couldnt be up for more then 20-25 days on a stable linux platform which I’ll elaborate in next “Windows vs Linux” match.

That proverb “The more money the more music” really sounds try sometimes. At least in this case. And I would say what Intel is doing is that it sees that it’s loosing some ~20% of servers from it’s rival AMD so why not make let’s call it “celeron” version of pentium. Which is like “Tulsa” version of “Xeon” to lower the price and perhaps the performance.

To be honest, I said I want my next processor to be Intel Core Duo, but right now I wont get it because of:
1. Price
2. Stability

I dont know yet, but I dont find it stable, I’ll let some more time pass to see if it’s good or not.

Second fight Linux vs Windows
Many of you who know anything about servers might’ve laughed right now. What’s so funny. Same situation is basically going around with Opteron vs Xeon.

I’ve read the most outrageous story (after windows get the facts of course):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060606/tc_cmp/188701822
Title of that article is “Reliability Survey: Windows Servers Beat Linux Boxes”
Again first line says it all “Windows 2003 Server is a more reliable server operating system than Linux”

The’ve concluded Windows 2003 Server is more reliable server than Linux? The’ve concluded that on annual uptime? I mean WTF are you talking about. Yea it’s all news.yahoo.com but million of people (on yahoo)who are not familiar with situation will go for windows server instead. And on top of it all this story ended up on slashdot.org as well.

I have to come to conclusion that the firm was paid to say such facts, or they are just plain idiots, even tho they said: “The Yankee Group made a point of stressing that the survey was not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker.”

I mean it’s bad name for yahoo to who’s running on FreeBSD servers. You know you can compare linux vs windows in any aspect but regarding server aspect and uptime aspect you just cant.

What is this world going to? Let’s all just go to Windows servers and Opteron processors. Hey it wont crash while you play the latest Need For Speed on it!

Sheesh.