From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Oct 13 08:52:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08379 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:52:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from base486.home.org (imdave.pr.mcs.net [205.164.3.77]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA08370 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:52:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imdave@mcs.net) Received: (from imdave@localhost) by base486.home.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16726 for questions@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:52:04 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:52:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Dave Bodenstab Message-Id: <199810131552.KAA16726@base486.home.org> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: PC mag ref (good and bad) to FreeBSD Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Has anyone noticed the Oct 20 issue of PC magazine references FreeBSD (p227) in a comparison with NT? (I don't know if this is online anywhere.) They benchmark FreeBSD 2.2.7 vs. NT as a web server and make the claim "FreeBSD outperfomed Windows NT by a sizeable margin, however, as you increase RAM, Windows NT surpasses FreeBSD because of a cache limitation in Apache and FreeBSD". What "cache limitation" are they talking about? Dave Bodenstab imdave@mcs.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message