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

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, jde3 said:

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.

No they do not.

[jde3]

For sure. it sucks as a protocol.. but one you want other people to use is well defined and people should know how to properly implement it in whatever code they are designing. Since Microsoft failed to do that they had it stripped from them by people that did figure it out and document it.

[jde3]

Just now, leadeater said:

No they do not.

You sure? I may think that from inside info.. or not.. not sure.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, jde3 said:

You sure? I may think that from inside info.. or not.. not sure.

Yes I am 100% sure, Microsoft creates the new SMB features it's their thing. Samba SMB 3.11 is completely experimental and buggy as hell when using those new explicit features.

 

SMB RDMA only works on Windows a 3.0 feature and SMB Multichannel partially works which is a 3.11 feature.

 

Think you need to go read the history of where SMB came from again and who is the current owner/developer of the standard, Microsoft.

[jde3]

Are they still playing this game.. man fuck that company. They have done nothing but harm to the computing industry.

 

Read my history.. shit man I was there for all this history.. I remember Netware and NT.. just dunno about my memory sometimes.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, jde3 said:

Are they still playing this game.. man fuck that company. They have done nothing but harm to the computing industry.

It's their protocol they can add to it how they like, Samba having crap support is their own issue. If they want to reverse engineer something all the power to them but their issues are theirs and has nothing to do with Microsoft.

 

You don't hear any Windows admins complaining about how bad NFS is on Windows.

[jde3]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's their protocol they can add to it how they like, Samba having crap support is their own issue. If they want to reverse engineer something all the power to them but their issues are theirs and has nothing to do with Microsoft.

 

You don't hear and Windows admins complaining about how bad NFS is on Windows.

I actually do sometimes.. lol because I won't implement Samaba. I treat Windows exactly the same way I treat Android on the network. It's a client system.. meh.

 

And the idea that they can do whatever they want with a protocol is bullshit. Protocols are used to talk to other things that's why we have them. People were absolutely right to sue Microsoft for anti-trust over this. (Novell and Sun I believe..)

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, jde3 said:

I actually do sometimes.. lol because I won't implement Samaba. I treat Windows exactly the same way I treat Android on the network. It's a client system.. meh.

Not implementing the most appropriate client access protocol is nothing short of bad network/server architecture, servers exist for only one reason so if you don't cater to that need then it has no reason to exist.

 

Hack/kludge solutions have no place in modern IT, the era of system administrators and engineers doing what they want at the expense of the users is over. That's one of the big drivers of the move to cloud services, not being able to get what you actually want because IT want it their way. This is a battle I fight myself as well because we often have a reason for why we want it that way but it doesn't make it the best user experience which often leads to them just working around you not with you.

[MysticalGnome]

Guys maybe you should fight this out over dm and not somebodies thread.

As for my take on the OPs question, this is largely dependent on your needs.
Both are capable but if it is not Microsoft specific like AD or Exchange or some Windows application than go for a Linux distro.
If you want enterprise support you should go for Redhat but Ubuntu is also very capable as a server OS, Canonical also offers support contracts should that be a requirement.

[jde3]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not implementing the most appropriate client access protocol is nothing short of bad network/server architecture, servers exist for only one reason so if you don't cater to that need then it has no reason to exist.

 

Hack/kludge solutions have no place in modern IT, the era of system administrators and engineers doing what they want at the expense of the users is over. That's one of the big drivers of the move to cloud services, not being able to get what you actually want because IT want it there way. This is a battle I fight myself as well because we often have a reason for why we want it that way but it doesn't make it the best user experience which often leads to them just working around you not with you.

it's always been that way. Cloud is just a fancy word for mainframe. You have a model where the clients are powerful and one where the servers are powerful. Microsoft always wanted compute to be on the desktop and they worked hard to try to make that happen but that era is over. that means the desktop is nothing more than a web browser now.. basically a graphical tty terminal.

 

Client focus has decentralized control where as mainframe/cloud has centralized control. That's the only difference.

 

Ya we should drop it.. we are way off topic..

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, MysticalGnome said:

Guys maybe you should fight this out over dm and not somebodies thread.

While I would normally agree with that leaving what is actually incorrect information for others to read is not something I like to leave out there for people to believe. Other than the anti Microsoft comments the Samba vs Microsoft SMB is fairly on topic as that is one of the most common usages when people ask this question. Linux and Samba is great in most cases but unfortunately it's implementation isn't that good compared to Windows, usually it's not an issue as high performance SMB isn't required by home tinkers building something like a FreeNAS server.

 

If someone has asked a question and there is a reply that is not correct, and it actually matters to correct it, then I will.

 

This is why we have the no Intel vs AMD, AMD vs Nvidia etc rules for the forum, people just can't resist attacking the company rather than just being objective about the differences. Windows vs Linux tends to be no different.

 

What you actually said about the topic/question is only ever what needs to be said about it.

[MysticalGnome]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

While I would normally agree with that leaving what is actually incorrect information for others to read is not something I like to leave out there for people to believe. Other than the anti Microsoft comments the Samba vs Microsoft SMB is fairly on topic as that is one of the most common usages when people ask this question. Linux and Samba is great in most cases but unfortunately it's implementation isn't that good compared to Windows, usually it's not an issue as high performance SMB isn't required by home tinkers building something like a FreeNAS server.

 

If someone has asked a question and there is a reply that is not correct, and it actually matters to correct it, then I will.

 

This is why we have the no Intel vs AMD, AMD vs Nvidia etc rules for the forum, people just can't resist attacking the company rather than just being objective about the differences. Windows vs Linux tends to be no different.

 

What you actually said about the topic/question is only ever what needs to be said about it.

I agree that nobody wants to have misinformation in the thread, however since the original question was very generic and we don't actually know what he wants to use it for, maybe we should wait for his reaction first before firing of everything about what each of them can do this keeps the thread clean and readable.

[jde3]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

While I would normally agree with that leaving what is actually incorrect information for others to read is not something I like to leave out there for people to believe. Other than the anti Microsoft comments the Samba vs Microsoft SMB is fairly on topic as that is one of the most common usages when people ask this question. Linux and Samba is great in most cases but unfortunately it's implementation isn't that good compared to Windows, usually it's not an issue as high performance SMB isn't required by home tinkers building something like a FreeNAS server.

 

If someone has asked a question and there is a reply that is not correct, and it actually matters to correct it, then I will.

 

This is why we have the no Intel vs AMD, AMD vs Nvidia etc rules for the forum, people just can't resist attacking the company rather than just being objective about the differences. Windows vs Linux tends to be no different.

 

What you actually said about the topic/question is only ever what needs to be said about it.

I actually respect you a lot @leadeater your a good guy and very knowledgeable. This time though i think we are going to have to agree to disagree. and that's totally fine.

My points are:

1. If your going to make a protocol you want to be accepted and others to use it must be documented. If your a monopoly and you do so to harm your competition you should be sued. Your harming the industry by doing so. Novell documented IPX and Sun created NFS and gave it away.

 

2. CIFS/SMB is a bad protocol, it does a lot of things that are ancient and wrong. (Side note SMB isn't even the right name for this, its part SMB, part NetBIOS and part LanMAN, and part whatever else it always was a hacked up protocol mishmash.) This is why it dosen't work well. It is hard to program to something that is so ill-defined. IMO It dosen't even work well windows <-> windows half the time, it also corrupts files occasionally and can't be trusted. Stay far away from it, that's my advice and use something transnational. (or something transnational over it like rsync)

 

3. Samba is the standard. If you are coding to it this is what you need to look at because almost every NAS implementation out there uses their implementation as well as a majority of clients, there are more Android phones out there today than there are Windows desktops let alone Windows storage servers compared to NAS's. I don't think even Microsoft is stupid enough to diverge their protocol so it won't operate with everything else in the world anymore because their usage of it is now the minority. It's like if Edge started speaking an incompatible version of the HTTP protocol.. nobody would care they would just uninstall it and use Chrome.

 

Now i re-posted those because I just want to make my statements on the topic clear and I think I've done so, if you disagree than that's all good. That's the spice of life. We wouldn't have anything to talk about if we all agreed all the time.

 

Also kinda side note here but I do believe I've had long conversations with people who work in Redmond about this and they may have said something like "yeah, its bad we just refer to samba most of the time" that actually makes a lot of sense when you know how that company works. Teams at Microsoft are not allowed to talk to each other, they work like independent companies with their own budgets. I'm not sure if you knew that or not but it's all compartmentalized so a lot of devs there actually can't get information on what other people are working on. Some of them are quite smart but they are ham stringed by the culture and it's the cause for the inconsistency a lot of the time between their products.

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, jde3 said:

If your going to make a protocol you want to be accepted and others to use it must be documented.

Well thing is Microsoft kinda doesn't, everyone's just reverse engineering it as Microsoft doesn't have the IP rights required to stop it due to it's origins, namely IBM. It's more of a can't stop you so won't help you situation. Good thing people can though, I'd hate to not have proper storage arrays for SMB shares like a Netapp. As good as Windows Server is for it now that really wasn't the case for sooo long, and it's still not as good as enterprise storage arrays.

 

Had Microsoft had their way way back when Samba wouldn't exist at all.

 

19 minutes ago, jde3 said:

Teams at Microsoft are not allowed to talk to each other, they work like independent companies with their own budgets. I'm not sure if you knew that or not but it's all compartmentalized so a lot of devs there actually can't get information on what other people are working on. Some of them are quite smart but they are ham stringed by the culture and it's the cause for the inconsistency a lot of the time between their products.

Yep and that even filters down to TAP members like we are. When you're under NDA when participating in a program that includes Microsoft employees you interact with that are not part of it, weird stuff. TBH I've unintentionally broken NDA in that situation, at least when it's to someone in Microsoft it's not that bad lol.

[jde3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Well thing is Microsoft kinda doesn't, everyone's just reverse engineering it as Microsoft doesn't have the IP rights required to stop it due to it's origins, namely IBM. It's more of a can't stop you so won't help you situation. Good thing people can though, I'd hate to not have proper storage arrays for SMB shares like a Netapp. As good as Windows Server is for it now that really wasn't the case for sooo long, and it's still not as good as enterprise storage arrays.

 

Had Microsoft had their way way back when Samba wouldn't exist at all.

 

Yep and the even filters down to TAP members like we are. When you're under NDA when participating in a program that includes Microsoft employees you interact with that are not part of it, weird stuff. TBH I've unintentionally broken NDA in that situation, at least when it's to someone in Microsoft it's not that bad lol.

Ha ya, i was fired by Apple once.. I didn't even know I worked for them It's good tho, I was happy.

 

Your totally right though but it's not just that.. If Microsoft had their way there wouldn't be any software made by anyone else. As absurd as that is that actually was their mission statement as a company. (I think that's still probably true by the way even though they preach open source now)

[Pyramiden]

What will TS be using the server for?
If money is not an issue then I would get the OS that he is most comfortable with, and has most experience with. If he just wants to use it as a NAS then I would consider a NAS specific Linux based OS like OpenMediaVault or FreeNAS.

Personally I picked Windows Server Essentials 2016. Why? Because it was free for me as a student, I am familiair with the interface, it is very flexible, and backups and restoring Windows machines is a breeze with it.

[Mikensan]

On 4/21/2018 at 5:01 PM, 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 ?

 

Just to make sure, Ubuntu Server vs Windows Server, because Ubuntu Desktop has a lot of overhead in the same way Windows Desktop does. Since about Server 2012R2, the Windows Server platform has been remarkably stable. There are multiple aspects of performance, but honestly in most work environments you're going to be meeting a need way before you're concerned about performance. 

 

A clean install of 2012R2 idles around 512mb of RAM, less if you install it without a GUI. Configured as an AD server with DNS and logged in through RDP (which spins up a couple more processes) my DC is using 1.6gb.

 

When choosing between operating systems it's use-case that determines what you pick. Some things just run better on one vs the other. SMB is specifically geared for a windows environment no matter how much arguing you want to do. That doesn't mean it is the best file sharing protocol, it is simply meant for and used by Windows. There's no pure *nix environment that uses it, they'd be crazy.

 

I can't think of any large businesses that do not have a windows environment. Your accounting team or management team aren't going to know what to do if you give them Linux with libreoffice. You'll probably get fired and replaced with some one willing to meet the customers' needs.

 

tl;dr - performance isn't the first metric to look at when choosing an OS. Figure out the use case, and then figure out which O/S it will run better on. Most companies operate in a highly mixed environment. What's faster, a bicycle or car? You think car, but you haven't gone to or seen Amsterdam yet have you? Right tool for the right job.

 

 

**also NFS on ZFS (or any other cow fs) is painful without a SSD slog for the synchronous writes. So iSCSI with asynchronous-writes performs better without a SSD slog than NFS. There is no perfect answer, gotta do whats best with what you have.

[jde3]

1 hour ago, Mikensan said:

I can't think of any large businesses that do not have a windows environment. Your accounting team or management team aren't going to know what to do if you give them Linux with libreoffice. You'll probably get fired and replaced with some one willing to meet the customers' needs.

I've worked for 4 companies over the past 10 years that have had Linux on the desktop in either part of the business or the entire business. One being a massive goliath in the IT industry. (Another large company I worked for had Solaris on the desktop oohh.. say 15~ years ago, not counting that one tho above)

 

It's not as bad as you might think. I was actually hired at one point to convert a business on the direction of the CEO and there was some foot dragging and some complaining from some of the staff but we managed and they are still on Linux to this day. People adapt pretty fast when they are not technical. They were using Corel though not StarOffice (what libreoffice/openoffice was at the time). Fun fact, WordPerfect is still the preferred word processor for most of the legal world.

 

So Linux is the best right? nah.. I actually think Netware 6.5 was probably the best domain management software out there.

 

When you work in Unix all your life like I have, you tend to get jobs where they use Unix. I imagine the same is true in reverse.

[AbsoluteFool]

On 23.4.2018 at 5:00 PM, jde3 said:

I've worked for 4 companies over the past 10 years that have had Linux on the desktop in either part of the business or the entire business. One being a massive goliath in the IT industry. (Another large company I worked for had Solaris on the desktop oohh.. say 15~ years ago, not counting that one tho above)

 

It's not as bad as you might think. I was actually hired at one point to convert a business on the direction of the CEO and there was some foot dragging and some complaining from some of the staff but we managed and they are still on Linux to this day. People adapt pretty fast when they are not technical. They were using Corel though not StarOffice (what libreoffice/openoffice was at the time). Fun fact, WordPerfect is still the preferred word processor for most of the legal world.

 

So Linux is the best right? nah.. I actually think Netware 6.5 was probably the best domain management software out there.

 

When you work in Unix all your life like I have, you tend to get jobs where they use Unix. I imagine the same is true in reverse.

I guess most people complain because they have to learn something new. Most people will learn new systems if they just find out the value in actually learning it. Heck we even learned to use Ubuntu desktop at school like ages ago, linux is quite user friendly depending on the desktop envoriment.

[jde3]

1 hour ago, AbsoluteFool said:

I guess most people complain because they have to learn something new. Most people will learn new systems if they just find out the value in actually learning it. Heck we even learned to use Ubuntu desktop at school like ages ago, linux is quite user friendly depending on the desktop envoriment.

That is ABSOLUTELY it. In general people don't like computers so they don't want to know how to use the computer itself, they only want to know how to do the task they set out to do upon it. They just want to cook food, they don't want to know how everything in the kitchen works. We are the freaks that actually like this shit.

 

Linux isn't harder than Windows by any stretch, I actually believe it's a lot easier because when you get to a point where your trying to do complex things.. Windows becomes a lot harder and cryptic. Even some of it's legacy stuff is cryptic. "Your main disk is C:\" - `Why C:, why not A:?` - "Because that's for your floppy." - `Whats a floppy?`

 

So you don't want to know about a computer and your presented with something different and immediately you'll get frustrated because the tasks your trying to preform aren't the same, the way you KNOW they should be.. When I was teaching the classes for new users I told people that in order to improve something, sometimes people have to make changes and that is ok when you approach it with the expectation that everything will be different. We were using Gnome 2 at the time and I'd explain how Gnome 2 would categorize applications into easy to understand groups. Where as on Windows it would place things in Start > Adobe > Photoshotp for example.. thats fine if you know who made the software you want to use.. but it's not if you don't. It's a change that better.. but it's different. Another example is that Windows uses the desktop as an application launcher.. thats ok.. but the reason they do that is because their application launcher is so bad. Gnome and other desktop generally use the Desktop folder for tasks that your preforming at the time. (Same way Mac OS does) So you have your recent project up there that your working on, on your desk not icons cluttering it up that launch applications. it makes sense again.. but it's different.

 

My gripes with Linux are much much deeper than that, design choices they make, most things redhat do to it like systemd things like that.