Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:20:19 -0700 From: Don Wilde <don@partsnow.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: [Fwd: Freeware] Message-ID: <353E34E3.308E0840@partsnow.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9B6FC0158A52439440426D1F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just got this in response to my 'Challenge' posted in various places. Sounds like SPEC might be open to working with us. In looking over the solution provided by Novell, it seems that what they did to achieve that number was to open up massive bandwidth in hardware. I don't have any systems that have 5 PCI slots for 100Base-T ethernet cards, and I don't have any P-][ 300Mhz chips laying around. SCSI-3 we can do, fast-wide disks ditto. Do we have Fibre Channel or SSC boards available to us? Is ATM stable yet? It'd be interesting to see how close we can get to that with less hardware, playing the same game that the other vendors do [RELEASE: FreeBSD/Apache Achieves 75% of Novell's SPECweb96 performance with 2/3 the Processor Speed!!!]. Alternatively, presenting a real-world system would be more valuable to real users. Comments? http://www.specbench.org/osg/web96/results/res98q2/web96-980322-02570.html is the URL of the Novell results, and webmaster@specbench.org will get to them. -- oooOOO O O O o * * * * * * o ___ _________ _________ ________ _________ _________ ___==_ V_=_=_DW ===--- Don Wilde [don@PartsNow.com] [http://www.PartsNow.com ] /oo0000oo-oo--oo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-ooo--ooo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-oo--oo --------------9B6FC0158A52439440426D1F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: (from bin@localhost) by cerberus.partsnow.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id IAA25702 for <don@partsnow.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: cerberus.partsnow.com: bin set sender to <adam.trickett@ucr.edu> using -f Received: from orange.ucr.edu(138.23.225.71) by cerberus.partsnow.com via smap (V2.0) id xma025699; Wed, 22 Apr 98 08:50:50 -0700 Received: from Boyden215 by navel.ucr.edu with SMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 8:51:09 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980422154810.009a2280@ucrac1.ucr.edu> X-Sender: trickett@ucrac1.ucr.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:48:10 -0700 To: don@partsnow.com From: Adam Trickett <adam.trickett@ucr.edu> Subject: Re: Freeware >> I not only suspect that you would be wrong in saying current Apache code >> could obtain better results than IIS or Novell's Enterprise port in a >> benchmark, I know it. SPECweb results have very limited meaning outside >> the "how can we make our software give the highest SPECweb results". >> Sure, that is a fun thing to play with and I play with such things with >> Apache to the limited degree that my available testbeds and time allows, >> but it misses the big picture. >>CUT<< >> >> Marc Slemko | Apache Group member >> marcs@znep.com | marc@apache.org > >I'm open to discussion on modifications of the challenge, although I think I've >made a fair attempt at uniformity and fairness. For example, tweaking source or >make-world compiling with a pentium-optimized compiler would give FreeBSD a real >advantage over payware, but you notice I've left that out. That is, unless NT is >specified as Pentium-or-better, which it probably is. I should have made the >small-business machine a 486, which FreeBSD / Apache works quite well on, in >that case. ;) Interestingly I sent an email to SPEC pointing out that the SPECWeb is a bit of a joke if Apache isn't on the list, it does afterall have over 50% of the internet market (by the Netcraft best estimate), here is his resposne... |Fair criticism, but unfortunately SPEC cannot control what results are |submitted to us. Those that run the tests decide what results are made |available to us. SPEC publishes all results that it receives that are |in accordance with our rules. | |Past experience has shown that customer demand is the best way to change |what results are made available to SPEC. The more that the marketplace |asks for results based upon Apache, the more Apache based results that |will be made available. Unfortunately without some customer pull, few |have the combination of resources and inclination to submit such results |to SPEC. | |Hopefully, someone will "break the ice" with an Apache result, and that |may start the whole thing rolling... | Alexander. | Parttime Webmaster for SPEC (and yes we run an Apache server...) I think you are right that now is the time to build a decent "operational" Apache server, and show what it can do. I'm sure showcasing FreeBSD or Linux based single processor 486 and Pentiums, may open some eyes, and a dual or quad PentiumPro or PentiumII, should really fly. Given it's as yet lack lustre performance on NT (though very configureable, and 1.3b6 does seem better) I'd skip this for the moment. My 2p (from a garage WebMaster...) Adam Trickett | http://www.darwin.ucr.edu/ Entomology, UC Riverside | Phone +1 (909) 787-6328 Riverside, CA 92521, USA | Fax +1 (909) 787-3681 In line with UCR guidelines: Any opinions expressed in this mailing are personal and do not represent the official view(s) of UCR. --------------9B6FC0158A52439440426D1F-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?353E34E3.308E0840>