Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:00:28 -0700 From: perry@zso.dec.com (Reginald Perry) To: "'Eivind Eklund'" <eivind@yes.no>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Message-ID: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F304@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD06BB49@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
DUH! Well of course NT was able to increase from ~200 requests/second to catch up with FreeBSD. The FreeBSD box had saturated the network and had nowhere else to go. The NT box still had 400 requests/second worth of head room before network saturation! So who is going to write the author and request a correction? -----Original Message----- From: Eivind Eklund [mailto:eivind@yes.no] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 3:13 PM To: Reginald Perry; freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F304>