Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:16:46 -0700 From: perry@zso.dec.com (Reginald Perry) To: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Message-ID: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F311@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD22C21D@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From my perspective. I just wanted to be sure that the article was accurate and that if what the article said about the cache limitation was true, what the exact problem was if it indeed is a problem. The answer seems to be that the statement about the cache is incorrect, but that there seems to be a bottleneck somewhere, but 1) its unclear where, 2) its unclear that its a problem. -Reggie -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG [mailto:owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Marc Slemko Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 2:15 PM To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD This short article is now online at http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/pclabs/nettools/1718/bench1.html If a machine has enough memory to keep most (for certain definitions of most) of the working set of the static benchmark content in memory, then IIS and NT do have an advantage over FreeBSD and Apache (both the OS and the webserver) due to various optimizations. Well, until NT crashes. The benefit of these optimizations in non-benchmark situations does exist, but it is questionable and quite situation specific as to if it is nontrivial or not. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F311>