From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Jun 20 19:45: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from pokey.local.net (tcs3-49.arl.netwalk.net [216.69.200.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E16F14D71 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:44:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmutter@netwalk.com) Received: from insomnia.local.net (insomnia.local.net [192.168.2.3]) by pokey.local.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA05487; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:41:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jmutter@insomnia.local.net) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:45:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "James A. Mutter" Reply-To: jmutter@netwalk.com To: Michael Urban Cc: Tani Hosokawa , Ludwig Pummer , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Nt outperforms Linux for web/file server? In-Reply-To: <376D714F.DC1AAE3E@webzone.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> You're also missing the fact that NT did kick Apache/Linux' ass in the :> test, and would have done so regardless what kernel patches/Apache tweaks :> were applied. Fact is, Apache's not a high performance web server .. : :Um... What?? : :Apache consistantly recieves very high marks on the fact that it is very fast, :and very high performance. If Apache was not a high performance web server, :then over half the web sites in the world would not be running it. I've never seen anything that suggests Apache is a _fast_ web server. What Apache is is (1) Free, (2) Reliable, and finally, (3) Configurable as hell. The above reasons are why most people run Apache. Speed has nothing to do with it. FWIW: I, and I suspect lots of others, would gladly trade speed for reliability any day. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message