Geeks With Blogs

News Clicky Web Analytics

web stats View David Caddick (davidcaddick@gmail.com)'s profile on LinkedIn

Search this Site!

Locations of visitors to this page
View My Stats eXTReMe Tracker
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. The opinions expressed within are my own and should not be attributed to any other Individual, Company or the one I work for. I just happen to be a classic techie who is passionate about getting things to work as they should do (and are sometimes advertised and marketed as being able to?) and when I can I drop notes here to help others falling in to the same traps that I have fallen in to. If this has helped then please pass it on - if you feel that I have commented in error or disagree then please feel free to discuss with me either publically or privately? Cheers, Dave
Thin Clients, VDI and Linux integration from the front lines.... Raw and sometimes unedited notes based on my experiences with VMware, Thin Clients, Linux etc.

Well, hang on a minute and let's not get too carried away? It doesn't "run" 45 times faster - what is explained here is a simple file copy, a large file copy sure, but essentially the basic File and Print server stuff that Novell used to own some 10 or 15 years back?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that someone at Redmond has finally found the Turbo button, and what I would be curious about is "exactly how" that copy instruction was carried out, and how they took their measurements - they haven't indicated wether this is on a 1G or 10G LAN for instance?

I'm sure it was done in a like for like manner, however the reason I ask is that there is a world of difference if for instance the new Server 2008 has been perhaps optimised for 10G? Was this carried out on a Server 2008 "Core"? was the copy initiated from Robocopy, command line, CtrlC-CtrlV, mouse - even these actions can tend to have an impact (especially over slower WAN links)  

I have no doubt that Server 2008 will be faster, but I'll wait to see exactly how much faster? ;-) 

Microsoft Developers: Windows Server 2008 Runs 45 Times Faster Than '03

It's not unheard of for some of the earliest adopters of Microsoft's Vista this year to compare the experience to swimming in wet cement -- slow and not very pretty.

But word is filtering out of the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant that indicates its new server could be considerably better. Ward Ralston at the Windows Server Division Weblog reports that "our MSN group who is dogfooding Windows Server 200 RC0" has achieved the kind of testing results that might prompt a double-take. In a side-by-side between Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008, the group set out to transfer 10.8 GB of "VirtualEarth Stitch files" from one server to another, and back again.

On Windows Server 2003, the data took five hours, 40 minutes and 30 seconds to transfer once, and more than six hours to transfer back again.

On Windows Server 2008, the same data took seven minutes and 45 seconds to transfer one way, and eight minutes and 10 seconds to transfer back. The Microsoft people spare you the task of doing all that math: "The improvement observed was ~45 times faster over windows 2003."

If the numbers are consistent and no other glitches come up (this software has been in beta for a few years now), it could prove compelling when it is launched - - an event now slated for the first quarter of next year.

Microsoft Developers: Windows Server 2008 Runs 45 Times Faster Than '03 - The Chart - IT Channel News And Views by CRN and VARBusiness

Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:25 AM Microsoft Tips | Back to top


Comments on this post: Significant speed improvements coming in Windows Server 2008??

No comments posted yet.
Your comment:
 (will show your gravatar)


Copyright © Dave Caddick | Powered by: GeeksWithBlogs.net