Re: [SILUG]: [LUNI] Bunk???

["Casey Boone" <cboone@accessus.net>]

linus torvalds(sp?) also has stated recently that apache doesnt do
multithreading properly and it could use some work.  also there is a new
webserver that benches faster than apache out now ... i think its with the
debian distro.  instead of spawning a new thread for each incomming
connection (like apache does) it processes it all in one thread (except for
cgi).  it keeps a table of what connections are open and what info each
connection needs etc....

this article was extremely biased IMHO.  they should have also tested out a
"real" unix like maybe freebsd or sun solaris. and perhaps even a test of
novell intranetware.

just my thoughts on it


casey boone

ps .. i thought the linux kernel itself was multithreaded ... its not? (im
not talking about support for it happening.. i mean the kernel itself
running in different threads)

----- Original Message -----
From: Rich <rich@richnut.com>
To: Kara Pritchard <kara@lanscape.net>
Cc: <silug-discuss@silug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [SILUG]: [LUNI] Bunk???


>
>
>
> Kara Pritchard  said:
>
> [FUD deletia]
> >
> >Both Linux and Windows NT Server were tuned to perform optimally under
> >each of the two workloads.  "We started the tests using standard Red Hat
> >Linux 5.2 but had to update it because it does not support hardware RAID
> >controllers and SMP at the same time," said Mindcraft's president, Bruce
> >Weiner.  "Linux definitely takes more time and resources to tune and to
> >configure than Windows NT Server.  You have to search the Net to find
> >the
> >latest kernel and driver versions to get the highest performance and
> >most
> >reliable modules. Then when you're done, Linux fails to deliver the same
> >level of performance as Windows NT Server on enterprise-class servers."
>
> I almost fell out of my chair on this one..
> Downloading aside it must have took a good 3 minutes to build that kernel
> from source on a quad procesor box. What a time drain.
>
> [more FUD]
>
> I dont deny the results of this test. The whole thing was built around
> multithreading which is an open issue in the Linux kernel. Linux cant send
out
> to four nics at once, the kernel is NOT multithreaded. NT is.
>
> They also specifically chose a box with ample amounts of everything
("enterprise
> class") to skirt the issues with NT on lower-end lower priced systems.
they use
> a big SMP box to level the playing field.
>
> If they are truly looking for the best price performance a cluster of
Linux
> machines should also have been investigated (remember you dont have to pay
> per cpu licenses) I think this would be an excellent followup/rebuttle
test.
> The Dell they talk about starts at roughly $18000 for a config similar to
what
> was reported. Add the cost of NT server and you're able to buy over 10
Linux
> workstations at the same cost. The goal here was to demonstrate the NT
performs
> better than Linux on the Dell PowerEdge, not that NT performs better than
Linux.
>
> -Rich
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
> "unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.
>


--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.