From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 5 15:24:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16352 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail13.digital.com (mail13.digital.com [192.208.46.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16282 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perry@zso.dec.com) Received: from rust.zso.dec.com (rust.zso.dec.com [16.64.0.1]) by mail13.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0g) with SMTP id SAA29193; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wakko.zso.dec.com by rust.zso.dec.com (5.65/DECwest-CLUSTRIX-mwd-12Dec94) id AA02764; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:23:53 -0700 From: perry@zso.dec.com (Reginald Perry) To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Dag-Erling_C._Sm=F8rgrav_'?=" , "'Eivind Eklund'" Cc: Subject: RE: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:20:58 -0700 Message-Id: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F302@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD06BB42@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I figured that there was a misinterpretation on the reviewers part. What I wanted to accomplish was to determine where the disconnect was and to see if there was a way that users could easily fix this. From the discussion so far, it looks like this wont be an issue unless you have a very high traffic site, but I still wish there was some correction that could be sent to these people. I like seeing FreeBSD in the press, but I hate misleading information. Also, Elvind just noted that the saturation point is the network saturation point. I wasnt so much worried about that as I was interested in this statement that "however, as you increase RAM, Windows NT surpasses FreeBSD because of a cache limitation in Apache and FreeBSD.". Otherwise I wasnt really worried about the article too much. It is entertaining that the 600 requests/second is the network saturation point. :-) -Reggie -----Original Message----- From: Dag-Erling C. Smxrgrav [mailto:dag-erli@ifi.uio.no] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 2:30 PM To: Eivind Eklund Cc: Reginald Perry; freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Eivind Eklund writes: > I'd guess the benchmark interpretation comes from the reviewer doing a > wild guess on why FreeBSD was slower. Hear hear. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that FreeBSD lagged behind NT as load increased simply because they didn't have a competent FreeBSD admin tuning the box. There are a couple of things you can do to a FreeBSD system that will make it positively scream for Web use but aren't in the default config; the squid docs mention some of it (e.g. tuning the number and size of mbufs) DES -- Dag-Erling Smxrgrav - dag-erli@ifi.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message