3 ms·
Here's a nice graphical comparison of syscalls between Linux and Windows http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=392 http://www.visualcomplexity.com/
by niels_olson 10y ago
Here's a nice graphical comparison of syscalls between Linux and Windows
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=392 http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=392
Are you saying the Windows flow looks like spaghetti only because the software tested software (Apache) wasn't designed for Windows?
- trentnelson 10y agoHeh, 10 years old, original link doesn't work, image is tiny. And it sounds like they were comparing Linux and Apache to IIS and Windows. It's hard to evaluate this in any way more than "yeah that's a cute spaghetti diagram". If I wanted to drag Linux through the mud visually I'd depict how much time every socket I/O op spends in vfs/fsync stuff. (i.e. you can depict anything to make your point)
- niels_olson 10y agoThat might be a cool diagram to show! I honestly know nothing about kernel programming, just happened to come across that a long time ago and bookmarked it.
- jsmeaton 10y agoThe second image is of IIS running on Windows, not Apache. Different software on different OSes. Regardless, it doesn't seem like parent is making the argument that the NT kernel isn't complicated - just that it is superior.
- bitwize 10y agoIt is more complicated because -- surprise -- I/O usage patterns do not fit in one neat little box, and you have to provide special handling of special cases that do occur frequently in the real world.