The Redmond, Wash., software company on Wednesday will release a reliability survey it commissioned and paid for, which finds that Windows Server 2003 is more reliable and robust and allows IT administrators to execute various tasks more quickly than those using Red Hat Inc.s Red Advanced Server 3.0 running on the same hardware.
Martin Taylor, Microsofts general manager of platform strategy, told eWEEK in an interview that there is a pervasive perception that Linux is far more reliable than Windows, and he wanted to see if that was in fact the case.
Touting his commitment to "getting the facts," Taylor said he asked VeriTest, a division of Lionbridge Technologies Inc., to undertake a "completely independent study of the issue" for Microsoft.
Taylor said Microsoft paid for the research because "if we didnt, it wouldnt get done. But that does not mean the report is not independent or that the results are not valid."
VeriTest measured the time it took a group of IT administrators—18 Linux and 18 Windows who had passed a screening process—to execute various tasks associated with improving the reliability and robustness of back-end infrastructure and end-user services in Windows and Linux production environments within a simulated medium-sized business.
VeriTest configured test environments with three Hewlett-Packard Co. ProLiant DL380 G3 servers running as an infrastructure server, e-mail server and file/print server. One set of test environments ran Windows Server 2003 and Exchange Server 2003, while the other ran Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3.0.
"The test environments were also specifically configured in a failure prone state. The systems were functional, but lacked basic hardware/software fault tolerance, up-to-date patches, and data access security," the test report states.
The administrators were given a series of proactive and reactive tasks and spent 26 hours over four days on these. The proactive tasks ranged from configuring new devices and printers to implementing system backups, system monitoring and remote access.
As the administrators executed these tasks, a VeriTest test proctor initiated reactive events like device or system service failures that simulated typical system problems and required troubleshooting to resolve, the report said.
VeriTest captured timing and task completion results from a variety of sources including administrators journal files, instant messaging logs and system service probing script log files, and exit interviews.