From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Jul 8 13:37:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from hp9000.chc-chimes.com (hp9000.chc-chimes.com [206.67.97.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE3315526 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:37:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@chc-chimes.com) Received: from localhost by hp9000.chc-chimes.com with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA281391053; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:24:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:24:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola To: Seth Cc: Donald Wilde , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Benchmarking web apps on Apache In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Seth wrote: > Hold up a sec. FreeBSD did NOT perform as well. Check the stats again. > The only things FreeBSD beat the other OS in was serving STATIC pages (and > mod_perl handler stuff). The "crucial" tests (dynamic content via cgi's) > showed the other OS to edge out our beloved FreeBSD. > > On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Donald Wilde wrote: > > > I wasn't concerned with his methodology, Bill, although I noticed the > > three points you make in a cursory glance. I would suspect it's #1 > > that's the reason FBSD works better. My only reason for the cross-post > > is that FreeBSD came out better. If we recall the vanished gartner group > > report, they came out with a more than 15% improvement for FreeBSD. I'd also like to add that we'd cry foul as loud as anyone if these "benchmarks" showed any other OS beating us. (I am, I guess) Let's not be hypocritical and shout from the tops of rooftops any benchmark that makes us look better unless we're really sure the benchmark is legit. - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message