Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:40:06 -0500 From: Stormy Henderson <stormy@futuresouth.com> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC mag ref (good and bad) to FreeBSD Message-ID: <19981013114006.B287@futuresouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199810131552.KAA16726@base486.home.org>; from Dave Bodenstab on Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 10:52:04AM -0500 References: <199810131552.KAA16726@base486.home.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A happy camper (Dave Bodenstab, imdave@mcs.net) once wrote...
> 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?
The folks on #FreeBSD had a couple opinions on this (I dunno if they are
right, I'm just repeating what I heard). First, they think that at 550
transactions per second, the 10Mbs network card was getting close to
saturated, so adding RAM wouldn't help any. Second, do you think the
folks at PC Mag recompiled their kernel to utilize more than 64MB of RAM?
I think they worded that in an ambiguous way: "WinNT surpassed FreeBSD."
That's what they wanted you to read, but I think what they actually meant
was, "WinNT's increase in performance with added memory surpassed
FreeBSD's increase in performance with added memory." That of course just
means that WinNT needed more RAM, while FreeBSD was perfectly happy with
what it had.
Be happy...
--
http://www.futuresouth.com/~stormy/signature.html
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981013114006.B287>