Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:37:25 -0400 From: Brian Mitchell <bem@atlanta-bsd.org> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, acahalan@cs.uml.edu Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@earth.backplane.com, mhagerty@voyager.net Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS Message-ID: <01061618372500.00258@bandicoot.atlanta-bsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20010616151848A.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> References: <200106162031.f5GKVfm16209@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <20010616151848A.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> For this particular benchmark, yes. If you want a rather less > contrived benchmark, why not compare Apache running under both Windows > NT and FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris? It's available for all those platforms > and given that you're running the same application, it would be a fair > assumption that any difference in performance will be due to the OS > itself and you'll also be able to stand by your benchmark as > indicative of something people actually CARE about, namely web server > performance. I'm not convinced this is a fair test either, particularly unix vs windows, for 2 main reasons: 1) The Apache port has not recieved as much attention as the unix ports, in terms of development effort/time 2) Implementations of identical features may take radically different code paths, not all of which are equivilant in performance. There may indeed be better ways of implementing feature X on windows than on unix, but because it's a port, those implementations may not have been used. I'm not convinced there is any such thing as a fair benchmark, nor am I convinced that benchmarks are valuable. Clearly the benchmark cited is flawed, but what benchmark is not? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01061618372500.00258>