From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 4 16:31:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29803 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.webspan.net (root@mail.webspan.net [206.154.70.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29626 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orion.webspan.net (orion.webspan.net [206.154.70.5]) by mail.webspan.net (WEBSPAN/970608) with ESMTP id TAA14441; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from orion.webspan.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.webspan.net (WEBSPAN/970608) with ESMTP id TAA28193; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:25:43 -0400 (EDT) To: Sean Eric Fagan cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: (none) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Sep 1997 16:40:09 PDT." <199709032340.QAA10588@kithrup.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 19:25:42 -0400 Message-ID: <28189.873415542@orion.webspan.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Sean Eric Fagan wrote in message ID <199709032340.QAA10588@kithrup.com>: > The numbers they do give for Linux are surprising, in fact -- it would seem > to indicate that Linux is considerably ahead of FreeBSD 2.2.2 in terms of > performance as a Web server, even with several hundred "simultaneous" > connections. There are a couple of possibilities: - They didn't increase the max connections in apache so apache itself was the throttle (unlikely, but possible) - they ran into mbuf limitations They also failed to mention which ethernet card was used. And I bet they had left tcp extensions on, which with lots of small packets probably didn't help much. Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info