Jump to content

Ubuntu server OR Windows server 2016 which one has the best performance?

jjdrost

Linus made a video about the Windows cliënt VS Windows server.

But which server has the best performance and can do the most? Ubuntu server or the EXPENSIVE Windows server ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jjdrost said:

Linus made a video about the Windows cliënt VS Windows server.

But which server has the best performance and can do the most? Ubuntu server or the EXPENSIVE Windows server ?

 

Ubuntu has the best performance from my experience, however, if you are running a website or a specific server Microsoft tools in windows servers will help you and be worth the performance impact to the server. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE THE OPEN SOURCH

:x

 

Edited by jjdrost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Linux Server preforms better than Windows. Not because i don't like Windows, but because windows might come with alot of features that is still there if you don't use it. Which equals to preformance loss. With Linux you can run a bare minimume and just install what you need. So linux will always go over Windows in preformanse in that way.

 

However, i do believe Windows server have better preformance on spesific tasks. Like those who are made for Windows and not linux. But overall i will say linux server wins the preformance test, atleast over Windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you actually want to do with the server? SMB shares are much faster on Windows for example because it's native to the Microsoft ecosystem and Linux/BSD has always had trouble getting it to the same level. The same is true in reverse for NFS, bad on Windows and excellent on Linux/BSD.

 

There are a lot of things both platforms can do and ones where each one is more suited to it but as far as performance goes most people are unlikely see or need to actually factor that in, we're not running large scale networks for it to matter. Not wanting to pay for Windows server is 99.9999% the reason people don't want to use it outside of a business paying for it i.e. home use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

it really depends on what you are doing with that server, the kind of workload you are going to put on it and what software and/or services it will be running/require to operate

*Insert Witty Signature here*

System Config: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Tncs9N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but.... seriously.. what are you going to "serve" on a windows server?

 

It's awful for a file server

It's not good for a web server application server

It can do docker.. in a vm using it's linux subsystem. what a joke.

 

The only thing you should ever put on them is AD and exchange because that's the only thing those services run on and I'm sorry your company has decided to use AD and exchange I know no sane person would ever intentionally deploy those things.

 

No offence here, they are really great at making videos and hardware and a lot of other things...... but don't take server advice from Linus. He's just not a systems engineer.. and that's ok.. we all have our strong points.

 

 

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jde3 said:

-snip-

you are forgeting that most of the consumer and business market use windows, like it or not the business market isn't going to switch as a lot of their software runs on windows and they want reliabilty and stability without having to worry that their windows clients having issues communicating with those Linux servers and are willing to pay for that

and before you say, oh they can just use wine,

1. wines compatibility isn't that great and can't run it 24/7

2. the software that comes with windows server can't be replicated with wine, some if it can, not all

*Insert Witty Signature here*

System Config: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Tncs9N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

you are forgeting that most of the consumer and business market use windows, like it or not the business market isn't going to switch as a lot of their software runs on windows and they want reliabilty and stability without having to worry that their windows clients having issues communicating with those Linux servers and are willing to pay for that

and before you say, oh they can just use wine,

1. wines compatibility isn't that great and can't run it 24/7

2. the software that comes with windows server can't be replicated with wine, some if it can, not all

....

 

Wine?

 

You have no idea what your talking about. Wine would never ever in a million years be used on a server for anything. By the way, Samba's implementation of CIFS/SMB *is* the defacto implementation of the protocol, not Microsofts. The reason why is Microsoft failed to document it for so many years (keeping it secret) the Samba team actually took over the implementation due to their clean work in the open. If you want CIFS/SMB and you don't want "communication issues", Samba is the right way to do it.

 

That wine thing dosen't even make any sense... what would you even want to use wine for? Some weird windows daemon binary you downloaded?

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain what I'm working on right now.. Not a lot of OS's can do this.. (Solaris can.. maybe Linux sorta)

 

I have a Jail server up on FreeBSD and I want some of the containers to be isolated but in the future I may want the jails to be able to talk to each other so I modified PF to look like this.

 

block in   quick on lo0 inet from $jailnet to $jailnet label "DENY JAIL LOOP lo0"
pass        quick on lo0 inet from  any     to  any label "PASS LOOP lo0"

 

This actually works and PF can block packets on a loopback interface that does not have an IP on the jail side from the host, that means I can limit the network stack in the jails quite a lot without using VIMAGE, nice. I can later go back and punch holes in that if needed. It can also do this without a single program outside of the OS installed. The jails themselves aren't modified so they are exportable host to host and don't need anything special.

 

Why this route? It's for micro services and the hosts only have around 512m or ram to keep costs down. VM's are just not an option here.. too much overhead.. or... I could use wine. heh.

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

it's real name is WineHQ

https://www.winehq.org/

most just call it wine, it allows for you to run windows apps on supported Linux distros and architectures 

/facepalm

 

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, jde3 said:

/facepalm

sorry i didn't read all of your comment (i do that sometimes)

also this isn't Reddit, /facepalm won't redirect me to that sub-reddit (i think /r is needed in front of it but i don't use reddit)

*Insert Witty Signature here*

System Config: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Tncs9N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

sorry i didn't read all of your comment (i do that sometimes)

also this isn't Reddit, /facepalm won't redirect me to that sub-reddit (i think /r is needed in front of it but i don't use reddit)

This gets me wet btw.

 

 

And..I guess I need to say this.. by wet i don't mean that it it makes me wet like a shower I mean it sexually arouses me intellectually and I want to copulate with it.

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jde3 said:

-snip-

you remind me of a stereotypical Linux user...

those who live in their mums basement and go on about how everyone should use Linux.

also your FreeBSD/VPC Muti-Host fetish is the most unusual i have ever come across, and i have seen some weird ones....

*Insert Witty Signature here*

System Config: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Tncs9N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ok if you don't understand it. It allows you to create a datacenter and spin up hosts for various clients independent of machine or even the site they are at. No big deal right?

 

And.. I actually don't like Linux.. for the record. I try to avoid it. I know it.. but imo it does a lot wrong.

 

I think your just inventing stereotypes here because you don't have an argument.

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jde3 said:

It's ok if you don't understand it. It allows you to create a datacenter and spin up hosts for various clients independent of machine or even the site they are at. No big deal right?

 

And.. I actually don't like Linux.. for the record. I try to avoid it.

i agree, Linux is a pain in the ass unless you know what you are doing, i looking online for courses that will teach me the advanced stuff in it as i want to play around with it and i want to expand my skill set beyond the Microsoft Eco system so a job requires me to know Linux i am at least i'm prepared for that

*Insert Witty Signature here*

System Config: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Tncs9N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is I know it very very well. The first time I used Linux was in 1996.. and I've used it pretty much every day in some form or fashion since then.

 

It's a pain in the ass even when you know what your doing. ;) And sometimes people like Redhat come around and try to tell you that they know better and you have to show them otherwise and "fix" their mistakes.

 

That dosen't mean windows is better.. its not. Windows is a consumer grade OS made by a company that cares more about your default desktop wallpaper than they do the technology under the hood.

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jde3 said:

By the way, Samba's implementation of CIFS/SMB *is* the defacto implementation of the protocol, not Microsofts.

Not when nearly every client accessing the server is Windows then it's not. If you have SMB shares then you are almost always accessing it from a Windows client. There is zero reason to not use NFS if the client is Linux.

 

9 hours ago, jde3 said:

It can do docker.. in a vm using it's linux subsystem. what a joke.

With the latest build that's actually not the case, still a preview thing but still why would you want to run Linux containers on Windows anyway. Microsoft only cares about implementing such a thing because Azure and not because Windows server customers want it.

 

7 hours ago, jde3 said:

If you want CIFS/SMB and you don't want "communication issues", Samba is the right way to do it.

Only issues I've ever seen is between Linux and Windows never Windows to Windows. Plus if performance was a requirement I'd take SMB Multichannel support (experimental Linux support) or SMB RDMA which only works on Windows.

 

Samba straight up sucks compared to Windows SMB.

 

6 hours ago, jde3 said:

This gets me wet btw.

So it can finally do what Server 2016 can do, XenServer, ESXi with NSX license and KVM.

 

Edit:

Also I think you need a refresher on where Samba came from

Quote

In 1991 Andrew Tridgell started the development of Samba, a free-software re-implementation (using reverse engineering) of the SMB/CIFS networking protocol for Unix-like systems, initially to implement an SMB server to allow PC clients running the DEC Pathworks client to access files on SunOS machines.

 

SMB was developed by IBM and taken over by Microsoft, it's pretty much always been their baby and they develop it and Samba tries to reverse engineer support for those new features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not when nearly every client accessing the server is Windows then it's not. If you have SMB shares then you are almost always accessing it from a Windows client. There is zero reason to not use NFS if the client is Linux.

 

With the latest build that's actually not the case, still a preview thing but still why would you want to run Linux containers on Windows anyway. Microsoft only cares about implementing such a thing because Azure and not because Windows server customers want it.

 

Only issues I've ever seen is between Linux and Windows never Windows to Windows. Plus if performance was a requirement I'd take SMB Multichannel support (experimental Linux support) or SMB RDMA which only works on Windows.

 

Samba straight up sucks compared to Windows SMB.

 

So it can finally do what Server 2016 can do, XenServer, ESXi with NSX license and KVM.

That's not accurate because the world is a bigger place than Windows and Linux. If Google, and Samsung, and HP, and Western Digital, and Fitbit, and Sony, and LG, and and and.. want to implement CIFS/SMB they use the samba implementation. That's what I mean by defacto standard.

 

Microsoft has be utterly secretive about it's mechanics for decades (they even refused to give it a proper name till they were forced to by a court order) but I think even they use the samba implementation now in windows 10.

"Only proprietary software vendors want proprietary software." - Dexter's Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jde3 said:

That's not accurate because the world is a bigger place than Windows and Linux. If Google, and Samsung, and HP, and Western Digital, and Fitbit, and Sony, and LG, and and and.. want to implement CIFS/SMB they use the samba implementation. That's what I mean by defacto standard.

And yet they never will because SMB makes no sense to use outside of client device network shares totally dominated by Windows. The bigger picture is SMB is really only useful to Windows clients otherwise you would use something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×