• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FaD Stats - Jun 06, 2004

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: BCinSC
OK, make the rest of us feel so very unworthy....

By the way, I think I've asked this before, but what OSes are y'all running?

Mostly XP, and 2000k

couple 2003 and linux baxes too.
Click to expand...
 
In addition to diskless workstations, I like to have headless. While I'm currently using only one monitor, keyboard, mouse courtesy of a pair of 8 port cascaded KVMs, the birdsnest of wires is overwhelming. Remote Desktop built into Win03 and XP Pro works great.
 
BC - I've been making progress. Currently, I can have a workstation contact the server, get an IP, and start downloading a kernel. My issue is still finding/making an image that will work with the hardware I'm using on the workstation. I haven't played with the 2.6 kernel yet, but I hear that the nForce2 support is better than in the 2.4, so I'm going to try that next.

I agree that XP is slower than W2K. I like Linux 🙂

Has anyone noted performance variations between the release and beta clients (on the same hardware/OS)?
 
Originally posted by: dringdahl
Originally posted by: BCinSC
Does anyone concur that Win03 is slower than Win2K?
Click to expand...

Most definately....
Click to expand...

Any thoughts as to why? Supposedly has most services disabled, thus I figured lower overhead.

Grendel - you think XP is slower, too? I have only 2 XP (Home) machines, but they seem OK.
 
Any thoughts as to why? Supposedly has most services disabled, thus I figured lower overhead.

Grendel - you think XP is slower, too? I have only 2 XP (Home) machines, but they seem OK.
Click to expand...

I just loaded 2003 on a fax server a week ago, I'm probably going to go back to win2k. Just seems very cumbersome, I think that most of the new features just add over head. If all you are doing is crunching though, I doubt you would see much of a difference.
 
I think XP is comparable to W2K if you disable all of the visual 'enhancements'. I've run W2K prof. and server and haven't noticed a big difference between them. Linux seems to be a bit faster, at least it seems to give higher CPU scores on the same hardware. A Linux box gives ~208 vs. a XP box which gives ~168. Same MB/CPU/RAM. Of course, it probably doesn't affect overall totals.
 
I dont know if FADspy works with linux but if it does that will tell you the cpu score, You can find info for that app in the forums at find-a-drug.com in the member support section.
 
Originally posted by: eclipsebyd
I dont know if FADspy works with linux but if it does that will tell you the cpu score, You can find info for that app in the forums at find-a-drug.com in the member support section.
Click to expand...


If you cat server.log you can see most of the details.
 
There is a file in your installation directory that should be:
hostname.tlg

It shows your CPU score as well as number of hits and much other info.
 
UNfortunately, I had FaD on the RAMDrive that Knoppix made (only place I could create a folder it seems) and the tlg file is now gone. But from calculations of the uploaded project, I believe my P4/2.53/533 Dell had a rating of 309. It is rated at 168, sometimes 140, in WinXP Home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top