Slashdot Mirror
Opera Unite Web Server Benchmarked
worb writes "Opera Unite comes with a web server which is supposedly going to 'redefine the web.' But how well does it actually perform? Is it a threat to other server solutions? Someone put it to the test, and published the results. While nginx, one of the fastest web servers available, is 5 times faster, a PHP+Apache+MySQL server is only 2 times as fast. A compiled C++ server, the MadFish WebToolkit, is 6 times faster. He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use."
Opera's Unite is not meant to refine the web as a hosting solution in the traditional sense, but as a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it. I don't think anyone is questioning whether it is a better hosting solution then a dedicated server. It's also worth it to note that Unite is a Alpha release with lots of bugs to be fixed and performance tuning and optimization to be done.
I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash. I'm starting to have hope for the future now. HMTL 5 will reduce the need for proprietary plugins, for sure. This Opera web server thing could work towards decentralizing the web as well. Sure, anybody can set up a web server to host their own content in theory, but its too difficult for average folks to do. With this technology, perhaps more people will sidestep commercial options, and host web pages on their own - meaning less reliance on geocities, google sites, ect. And thats good. It's not healthy for a few companies to have that sort of control over a medium.
Is it a threat to other server solutions?
In one word, No.
In more words, can it run apps written in PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, etc. with SQL server database back ends? No.
Can it be load-balanced, clustered, etc. on servers in a data center? Well, maybe if you tried hard enough. Heck, you do anything if you try hard enough. But in one word, No.
...and leave all your data on someone else's server, which is exactly what Unite allows you NOT to do. Why would I pay for web hosting or let Facebook hold my data hostage when I can distribute whatever I want, including any size pictures (have you seen the size of Facebook photos?) to whomever I want using Unite?
And yet it's still smaller than the so-called "pure browsers" ;)
You realize it is still smaller download then Firefox and has a smaller memory footprint then all other browsers, right?
The summary conflated a web server with a database and a programming language (PHP+Apache+MySQL) when discussing benchmarking of just a web server.
I'll go ahead and assume that the article isn't worth reading.
"So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page."
I'm guessing you haven't actually tried the software. But you know about problems with it already even though it isn't actually a "webserver/daemon" in the classic sense of the word.
That's kinda like saying "I don't like asparagus but I've never tried it because I don't like it".
Maybe it does have a security hole in it. But shouldn't we actually find out first before we just guess and assume that it does?
Security hole. Pffft. BindOutlookXPIEExcel. Life goes on.
Need Mercedes parts ?
>>If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.
Yeah, but maybe this product (and ones already out there and soon to follow) will allow us to expand our idea of what should be web accessible.
For example I wouldn't make my entire MP3 collection web accessible using Google storage space. Why because even though my intention is to use it only so "I" can access all my music anywhere I go, Google might not see it that way. (Or what ever company I happen to have storing my data). With Unite and a few clicks I can have my music available to me and not have to worry about the company hosting it thinking I might be breaking the law.
Opera's web server has a completely different target market than apache, and is so completely different that to compare Opera to Apache is like comparing benchmarks of serving static content to that which comes from a database -- yes, another silly comparison that TFA for some unknown reason actually makes. Apples ain't oranges!
/., where most of us actually know that dynamic!=static content. A far better, and insightful article on Unite was written by this guy: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/
As others have mentioned, to serve pages to anyone other than yourself, the requests will be sent through (and approved by) Opera's servers. Unite itself isn't open source, apache is. Apache can do almost anything any web developer can dream of. Unite is one dimensional.
As for your configuration "argument", are you still trying to install Apache from source or something? a WAMP install will put apache/mysql/php on your computer in a minute or two. Toss a blog app into the web folder, use a browser to enter its connection settings, and voila! you've got yourself a basic, but dynamic blog online in minutes, just for one example.
But besides using it for web development, running a website with PHP/any dynamic language off your home desktop would be exposing yourself to some serious risks, which is again yet another reason that a Unite/Apache+PHP comparison is completely senseless.
What is truly wrong is that TFA and its "benchmarks" made it onto
--
The Opera fanboys are out tonight, and with mod points to spare. Hmm, it's not even a full moon.
How dumb, or seriously ADD,
do you have to be, when the major question you ask about
a new technology is: Yeah, but how fast is it?
"We've invented this program that is smarter than the average bear"
"Yeah, but how fast is it?"
"You don't understand! This baby even knows that you're not SUPPOSED
to fight forest fires!"
"Yeah, but how fast is it?"
Seriously, these speed evaluations are irrelevant, boring, and inane to
the extreme. How about some evaluation of the possible uses this new
technology will be put to, and how its abilities to support these uses
compares to other competing or similar technologies.
"Look at this new amp we've got! Look at this. It goes up to 11! Unbelievable!"
"Yeah, but how fast does it go pedal to the metal, man?"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Can you say "huge honking security hole"?
The great news is there are viable replacements for this reference to Microsoft's operating system. Debian, BSD's, maybe some other Linux distro are more than capable of serving and Opera runs on all of them.
Another Opera summary that's mostly flamebait. That's disappointing because it's a good idea whose time has been very long in coming.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
How long does it take someone unfamiliar with a each web server take to download the required software and serve the first page?
I bet Opera Unite beats the other solutions by a mile.
and most of my friends are in their 20s. Some of them never check their emails
I'm guessing none of your friends either work or are at college. Try telling your boss or University sysadmin that you don't want customer emails or system notices because you won't read them unless they are sent via mySpace . . . No job/Slap around the face will quickly ensue!