Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:39:58 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Mark Giglio <markgiglio@yahoo.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hotmail converted from freeBSD Message-ID: <15077.62126.88738.629586@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <46388032@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Giglio <markgiglio@yahoo.com> types: > I am interested in FreeBSD and how it compares to > other systems like win2000, esp because I would like > to build a big powerful super computer and am > investigating options for my os. Well, on this list you won't hear anyone recommending much else. If you are serious about a very large system, you might want to look at commercial RISC Eunices with lots of processors, but most people think that managing lots of smaller systems (i.e. - SMP FreeBSD systems) is a better approach. > first of all, (please humbly pardon my ignorance) what > does the comment re sockets mean. "One process per socket" means that there is one process listening on each socket you have open. > secondly, is this true about bsd. This model is indeed inefficient on FreeBSD - and every other OS I know of. If there's an OS out there that can handle this model efficiently at the levels required for a busy web server, I'd like to hear about it. > and thirdly, can it be improved, or is it a property of cgi and fixed? Oh, it can definitely be improved. Most modern web servers use a threaded model, with one thread per socket. That's the recommended model on Win9X, so I suspect that's what they went to at Hotmail. They could have done the same on FreeBSD, but it would have required hiring talent they didn't have or want, whereas they probably have more Win2K talent than anyone else on earth. For killer performance, you go to a single thread of control for all your sockets and use the Unix select() syscall. This makes all the technical headaches associated with threaded systems and separate address spaces disappear, cuts the overhead associated with context switches, and in general simply screams. Win9X doesn't have a native select() call. The Cygnus tools apparently simulate it using threads (which throws out about half the advantages). I suspect that the same is true of Win2K > if it is not true, then surely there is no need to > migrate to Win2000 at all .... MS migrated to Win2K for business reasons, not technical ones. That you don't have and don't want anyone with the talents to do the job on the existing system is a valid reason to migrate, but it *isn't* a technical reason. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15077.62126.88738.629586>