From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Jan 20 13: 3:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [207.200.153.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CC337B404 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:03:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by misery.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16SOW8-0004MU-00; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:24:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:24:38 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Emre Bastuz Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Solaris vs. FreeBSD in High Traffic Environments In-Reply-To: <3C4A97B6.4070409@emre.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Emre Bastuz wrote: =2E.. > I have just a couple of questions concerning the performance > of those OSs when used for a high traffic webserver. I think it is important to define what "high traffic" is. 10Mbps sustained? 30Mbps? Percentage of dynamic content? =2E.. > The machine got offline twice within 48 hours (the Solaris box had never > crashed), that=B4s why some tweeking on the kernel and other parameters > was done. Since then the server is performing great. How did it crash? =2E.. > Any major differences in the calculation of the load values > on both systems ? =2E.. Calculation of the load average is not percisely the same on all UNIX variants. It can't be made the same, because the task scheduler is different in all the variants. Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message