From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 5 16:03:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA26335 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:03:33 -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 QAA26322 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:03:26 -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 TAA03504; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:03:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wakko.zso.dec.com by rust.zso.dec.com (5.65/DECwest-CLUSTRIX-mwd-12Dec94) id AA03449; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:03:22 -0700 From: perry@zso.dec.com (Reginald Perry) To: "'Eivind Eklund'" , Subject: RE: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:00:28 -0700 Message-Id: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F304@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD06BB49@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 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