PPC Linux vs. Mac OS X Server: Linux Edges Out

Spencerian writes "Mac OS X is a very promising new BSD variant, but how does it rate as a server? Byte.com writer Moshe Bar has made an extensively balanced performance comparison of Mac OS X Server 10.1.5 versus SuSE Linux PPC with the 2.4.19 kernel. Both operating systems ran on the same hardware: an Xserve 1U rack mount server from Apple. While /.ers may guess (correctly) at his results, Mac OS X Server 10.1.5 wasn't as far behind the curve as you might think. Performance might've been better if Moshe had Mac OS X Server 10.2, with its faster GUI and other enhancements, but still, it appears that Mac OS X Server 10.1 was doing pretty good for a 1-year old."

Comments

Eh?

[zulux]

To me, the performance of Linux over OS-X is marginal and not really worth considering. The choice really is over what the computer administrator is more comfortable with - hell, put NetBSD if it will make the administrator more productive. The server only costs $3000 bucks so screwing around just to get a 10% improvemnt is not worth it - but if Linux makes the administrator 10% more productive then do it.

Stupid Example:

I haven't benchmarked FreeBSD vs Linux and I really don't care - all my file servers are FreeBSD because I'm expensive and learning Linux is not cost effective (for me). YMMV.

I'd like to see him repeat it, with a few changes

[burgburgburg]

I'd like to see him repeat it, but with a few changes:

a) Get the latest Jaguar
b) Go to Apple and SuSE and get advice on tuning
c) If it is available under SuSE, use gcc 3.1 for compiling

Moshe admitted that there was probably alot of optimizations that he missed. I'd like to see them both tuned for speed and then compare them.

Also in "today's" headlines...

[greygent]

Microsoft's Windows 2000 Server beat a Red Hat Linux* server in bandwidth tests, showing its clear superiority.

* Red Hat Linux v4.2 used in tests.

Hear, hear...

[GreatDave]

Agreed... but let me throw you a curve.

POSIX systems have extensibility, portability, multiple programming languages, a networked windowing system with your choice of WM/DE, TRUE multiuser capability, efficiency and stability.

What does Windows have? Most of the above, specifically minus portability, the networked windows system (Terminal Services doesn't cut the cheese), efficiency (in recent versions) and stability. What Windows doesn't give you is choice. I argue Windows is not any more "designed for the user" than Unix, but rather that in Windows (or at least in each version) everything is only One Microsoft Way, and you cannot do much to change that. Microsoft also has mindshare and a $50+ stock price.

To the topic at hand now. Apple now more or less equals Unix as far as the OS is concerned. Specifically, OS X is POSIX plus everything being pretty, and there being an Apple Way (often, multiple Apple ways such as the choice of APIs) and a BSD Way to do most things.

This is why I argue OS X, now that it is proving itself as a server, can advance ground on the desktop and on the server.

Re:The slashdotted text

[merlyn]

package Apache::Bench;
sub handler {
my($r) = shift;
$r->content_type('text/html');
$r->send_http_header();
$r->print('Hello, world ');
200;
}

Uh, that's not a "CGI handler". That's a mod_perl handler. And if that's the case, it shouldn't have been a 10-to-1 speed reduction over serving a static page.

And a Perl script launching "wget", instead of just using LWP? Whuh? Huh?

So, all these benchmarks are suspect. Beware. The author is either confused, or the editors mangled his message.

Re:Why use an old version of Mac OS X?

[toupsie]

It must be very very difficult to be an online journalist, be human, and be berated for not being perfect.

Its called "fact checking". If you are publishing for a magazine, its a requirement. Moshe could of typed this in Google and figured it out quickly. You would expect a person that is doing benchmarking of a product for publication to actually understand how to set it up for the test. Not doing this has made this article a waste of time.