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."

Comments

Re:Left out?

[Penguinisto]

I have no idea as to why they think these results are applicable for enterprise applications, but left out enterprise J2EE solutions. We run both Oracle and WebLogic (the latter being not entirely our fault, honest!) here in various implementations. We wouldn't even think of using, oh ferinstance, MySQL* for the multi-million object DB's that Oracle (in a RAC config, so it gets to sync everything on-the-fly w/ its partners for HA) chews away at on a daily basis.

*MySQL fans can kindly keep your flames to yourselves, plz - I know Google uses it and whatnot, but they also have a large staff just to maintain and modify it, not to mention the large cluster farms to run it - we don't have those luxuries here. If it's any consolation, MSSQL would be an even worse solution due to the ungodly underlying resource demand that it carries.

Tangents aside, if the "e" in "eWeek" is supposed to stand for "enterprise" (IIRC), then fer hell's sake they shouldn't exclude the mainline enterprise stacks in their benchmarks.

/P

Re:Worst... Benchmark.... Ever...

[Yuioup]

Hmm I knew I read this post somewhere before...

http://digg.com/software/eWEEK_Labs_Bakeoff_Linux_ Versus_.Net_Stacks#c2266320

Gotcha! :-P

Y

PS: I need a life...

Re:Left out?

[happyemoticon]

Brazil and Britain are both up there. In Britain I don't think it's that the women are hotter, but that they're less inhibited. Every British person i've met, male or female, claims that American women play those crazy games defined in "The Rules" - i.e., the ultimate women's guide to never having or enjoying sex - a hundred times more than British women, who are more receptive to open advances.

British women are more likely to be cute because they're less likely to be obese, but I find smoking pretty disgusting. Can't have your cake and eat it too, I suppose. But I think I'd prefer living in a place where people acknowledge that everybody wants to copulate, including women, and that this is not a bad thing. Of course, there are countries that are worse than America. I know a woman from Peru who was educated at a Catholic school.

Re:Left out?

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Every British person i've met, male or female, claims that American women play those crazy games defined in "The Rules" - i.e., the ultimate women's guide to never having or enjoying sex - a hundred times more than British women, who are more receptive to open advances.

At some point I recognized those 'games' for what they were and now simply refuse to play them. By telling people I know they're bullshitting, I usually get them to simply be honest. Life is so much easier that way.

And anyway, I want to move to Britain. ;)