Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:53:35 -0700 From: perry@zso.dec.com (Reginald Perry) To: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Message-ID: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F300@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD06BB3A@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
They didn't say. This is the relevant paragraph: "We tested FreeBSD in one of its most common applications: Web serving. We set up two Dell PowerEdge 2200 servers with 128MB RAM and a single Pentium II CPU, installing FreeBSD with Apache 1.3.0 on one and Windows NT 4.0 with IIS 4.0 on the other. On our ZD WebBench 2.0 tests, performance leveled off quickly; memory was the bottleneck for both NOSs. FreeBSD outperformed Windows NT by a sizable margin, however, as you increase RAM, Windows NT surpasses FreeBSD because of a cache limitation in Apache and FreeBSD." At the bottom of the page, is a WebBench graph of clients on the X axis and requests/second on the Y axis that shows both leveling off at about 8 clients with NT starting to level off above 4 clients and FreeBSD leveling off very sharply at 8 clients. The level is at ~200 requests/second for NT and ~600 requests/second for FreeBSD, if I am extrapolating this graph correctly. The graph measures out to 60 clients. Of course they failed to show a graph for average maximum requests/second vs. amount of RAM. -Reggie -----Original Message----- From: Eivind Eklund [mailto:eivind@yes.no] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 1:27 PM To: Reginald Perry; freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 12:12:50PM -0700, Reginald Perry wrote: > Hi there, > There is an article in the Net Tools, From The Bench section of PC Magazine > talking about FreeBSD 2.2.7. Looks pretty factual, but there was one > confusing statement. They initially configured both machines with 128MB of > RAM. They then increased the RAM and noted that as you do this NT surpasses > FreeBSD in their performance measure. They state that this is because of a > cache limitation in Apache and FreeBSD. Is this true? Could someone describe > this in more detail if so? FreeBSD is tuned to have max performance when it get under load - ie, when it actually is doing something. There should not be any limitations to the use of cache - FreeBSD basically regard _everything_ as cache. Your entire RAM is just a cache for the disk. I'd guess the benchmark interpretation comes from the reviewer doing a wild guess on why FreeBSD was slower. BTW: How much was the difference? And how much did they increase the RAM size? Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F300>