From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 5 15:15:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13917 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA13899 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:15:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA03203; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:12:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id AAA07907; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:12:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19981006001237.11507@follo.net> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:12:37 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Reginald Perry , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD References: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD06BB3A@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F300@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F300@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>; from Reginald Perry on Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 01:53:35PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 01:53:35PM -0700, Reginald Perry wrote: > 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. So FreeBSD has about 3x higher performance than NT on the same hardware? Anyway; 600 requests/second is about 10MBit/(600*8) = 2184 bytes transfer per request. This fit pretty well with the fact that they're trying to emulate a typical web-server load (according to the WebBench description at http://www.zdnet.com/zdbop/webbench/1main/1wrktree.htm). If that is IT (ie, they're using a 10MBit NIC) I'm not surprised at the sharp cutoff - I'd expect a sharp cut-off around the capacity of the network :-) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message