Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:02:34 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: dwilde1@thuntek.net Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Benchmarking web apps on Apache Message-ID: <37859E8A.9DF700CD@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.HPP.3.96.990708115318.14681B-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> <378506C7.BB772E44@thuntek.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. It came better for static pages, lost in dynamic ones. Anyway, that benchmark ain't worth the bandwidth spent downloading the results. At the very least, we don't know how Apache was compiled in each one. It might be just a matter of compiler optimization... We also don't see how each machine was set up/tuned, so you can just imagine what difference would a standard FreeBSD vs a standard Linux mount for the filesystem would do to performance... Really, a friend of mine, with whom I have friendly flame wars on Linux vs BSD, sent that to me, and I just had to blast the hell out of him for wasting my time with it. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org Given infinite time, 100 monkeys could type out the complete works of Shakespeare. Win 98 source code? Eight monkeys, five minutes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37859E8A.9DF700CD>