S@H on NT4.0 vs. Win2K - which is best?

[JWMiddleton]

I am going to install NT4.0Wrkstn with SR6a, to see how it does with the Low Angle-Range WU problem But, I was wondering which is better with S@H; NT4.0 or Win2k? Anybody have experience with a both of these OSes??

Thanks and Happy Holidays!

 

[danzigrules]

I think, from what Poof said at ars, that nt was faster.

 

[Fardringle]

Danzigrules: Win2K is NT. 🙂 (It's technically NT 5..)

As for the first question, I only have access to NT 4, so I unfortunately can't help you with that one.. 😱

 

[danzigrules]

Well FD poor little ole me just has 98. Never seen either one of them😉

 

[Poof]

JWMiddleton - I've run it on both (currently running on 2K right now) and I think 2K is a little faster than NT 4.0. However both experience the low angle range WU problem like 9x/ME, except no where near the degree that 9x does...

I haven't tried a bench on a dual boot NT/2K system 'cause I don't have one setup - that would give the best indication by running on the same hardware. My 2K dual boots between 2K pro and 2K advanced server. My NT triboots with SuSE 6.4 and 98.

I'd be interested in seeing the result though...

 

[JWMiddleton]

Thanks for the input. I will install NT4.0 when I get back to Shreveport (I'm home for the weekend.) And, I'll let you know how it compares with 98SE. If it doesn't significantly reduce the time for LAR WU's and if it is not as fast on "Normal" one, then it might be a waste of time!

If it is significantly better with LAR WU's then I want to figure out a way to move all LAR WU's to that box, even if I have to hand load the queue.

 

[Poof]

JWMiddleton - Oh yeah...NT is much better than 98SE, especially for VLARs. I'm now running the nt40 file system option for WINE on my fastest Linux box because of that. Even if VLARs come through, it'll process them a little faster than 9x would and in general, the CLI itself is more optimized and processes 1/2 hour faster than the native Linux client anyway.

I know of people who are segregating their VLARs as you suggest and one recommendation was to set up 2 instances of Setiqueue and manually move the WU types to a specific one. Then you point the machines that will best process that WU, to the appropriate queue. That'll probably screw up the setiqueue log but at least you get the most efficient processing - especially during those times when large groups of VLARs get sent out and end up becoming a significant portion of the total queued WUs.

I know that the above is inpractical for large farms of machines but for the home user with a good number of machines, it is do-able.