From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 12 12:22:58 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA08057 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA08042 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Haldjas.folklore.ee by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA16880 (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:21:33 -0700 Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11777; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 22:27:01 +0300 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 22:27:00 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: Jaye Mathisen Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD/OS webperf notes, anybody want to test FreeBSD? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Jaye Mathisen wrote: > > > http://www.BSDI.COM:81/products/internet-server/benchmarks/webperf.html > > > > I would think we could do better. And this is yet again me. I took a look at the MS supporting performance test and found that, as a matter of fact, even in that damn test, NT running IIS actually lost to BSDI in the CGI tests! And running the Netscape server, it lost around 2x on the light and medium CGI tests. So the test was actually all about comparing the Web servers and showing that Netscape server is certainly not up to the specs. The comparision with BSDI was just evil. The results with Apatche on BSDI vs. IIS on NT are IMHO quite predictable and not suprising at all. Sander > >