Slashdot Mirror
OSS Web Stacks Outperformed by .Net?
Gimble writes "eWeek has an article up that looks at the performance of portals using open source stacks and comparing them to their MS equivalents. The article's conclusion is that .Net outperforms the open source stacks, mainly because of its tighter integration, but also notes that running the open source stacks on Windows (WAMP) delivered strong performance." From the article: "Based on our forays into user forums for many top open-source enterprise applications, there are many IT managers attempting to run open-source products on Windows servers--attracted, no doubt, to the benefits and efficiencies of using open source without having to become Linux administrators. The results of our WAMP stack tests indicate that these folks might be on to something."
I'm no system administrator, but I have a home box running WAMP (XAMPP on 2003) and it's good enough for my needs. Recently I tried out Ubuntu Server to see what it's about, and I'm tempted to buy a new pc just to run that. When I tried to run mod_python under WAMP it took a whole lot of debugging and configuration (apparently it didn't like the already installed python 2.4), but with Ubuntu it was as simple as apt-getting it.
I would very much like it if I could continue using Windows (because I run other programs that are not available on Linux) but it can't match the simplicity of Ubuntu.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
I've read the article before it hit /. and their conclusion is that there is no clear winner. .Net outperforms OSS solutions on some tests and vice-versa. The surprising(*) results are how good WAMP performed in some of the tests (if you really want specifics RTFA). Here is a direct link to the tests.
.Net, i.e. Mono apps with .Net framework vs pure .Net and pure Mono, so although there is no connection between JIT compilers and web servers performance, the trend is there.
* - I've seen similar results in benchmarks of Mono &
Too bad the article haven't touched Mono.
Ya, I wouldn't want to pay that either. Luckily, Windows doesn't cost that much money.
u y/licensing/pricing.mspx
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, 32-bit version - $399 Open NL
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $999 (5 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $1,199 (10 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition - $3,999 (25 CALS)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtob
You can also get licenses for a lot less than retail on eBay, and it's perfectly legal. I've purchased Web Edition for as little as $200, and Enterprise for $1200. There are lots of companies who buy these things in bulk and end up not using them.
In addition, if you're not hosting an external site (customer facing) you can get an Action Pack subscription for about $300 that gives you access to up to 5 licenses for each of these OS's.
See: https://partner.microsoft.com/40016470
.net 2.0 naitvely supports x86, x64, and ia64, fyi.
God I hate Microsoft licensing. You're right, you can use Web edition of Windows Server. I've been searching this for hours.
u y/licensing/priclicfaq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtob
Here's an exerpt from the preceding page:
The End User License Agreement states that CALs are required for access or use of the server software and goes on to list usage examples. If I am using the server in a way that is not listed (e.g., as an application server), do I still need CALs?
A. Yes. The list of examples in the End User License Agreement is not exhaustive but is instead meant to illustrate some common uses of the server software. If a device or user is accessing or using the server software, a CAL is required, unless:
access is through the Internet and is unauthenticated, or
access is to a server running Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, or
access or use is by an External User and External Connector licenses are acquired instead of CALs.