Slashdot Mirror
C't NT vs Linux benchmarks : Linux wins
Anonymous Coward writes "Go check out this benchmark of Linux vs NT in a real life-situation. C't makes a pretty good point here, showing Linux/Apache to be ahead of NT in performance in daily life! Also compliments the Linux community for its responsiveness: "Emails to the respective [Linux] mailing lists even resulted in special
kernel patches which significantly increased performance. " This is the C't benchmark that's been bouncing around lately-translated into English, for all of the German-impaired out there.
Posted by viperx2:
A German magazine was outraged by these false claims, got the newest fastest version of German Linux, which I consider to be the best, fastest and most reliable linux, and did real world tests to see what happened. I have to hand it to the germans! Kudos!
But what happens when NT5 comes! AHHH!!!! Get to work open source and freeware guys!
Viper-X
Was that before or after National Lampoon's "Cohen the Boy-barian"?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The benchmark was run a few weeks ago, not yesterday! The only "new" stuff is the English
translation.
I would like to see a benchmark between systems that people might actually buy for $40k. I know Intel is happy when people buy their $3000+ cpu's, but I think if a company is going to spend $40k on webservers they are more likely to get 5 $8000 computers. $8k still buys a lot of computer. You can get machines with 512MB and dual PIII's. It seems like a waste to throw 4 NIC's on a single machine when four smaller much cheaper machines can still do better.
I am no expert, never having run a huge (slashdot or linux.com sized) web site, but I was a sysadmin at a small ISP and we never considered dropping that kind of cash on one machine. If anyone has economic justifications for buying one big machine instead of several smaller ones, I would love to hear it.
I'm not real sure either one is a "real" word.:)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Posted by viperx2:
This is a dangerous obesession. But the linux guys aren't the half of it. Windows wants nothing less than total global computer domination. Anyone that disagrees is a fool. Linux was started with the notion of putting linux on a PC. Whoo pee. Who cares. Then There was the amazing free policy with linux.
FREE? Since WHEN is software free?!
Suddenly Microsoft aggressivly tries to force Netscape out of buisness, and crushes any competition with IBM OS/2 Warp, and makes macs look like jokes, when both are very capable operating systems. Do you think that this has changed?
I recently saw the "Pirates of Silicon Valley" movie, and I am sure that all of Microsofts NT team is working 90 hours a week, around the damn clock with nothing on thier mind but making this OS faster, faster and more faster? Wrong. They are there to beat linux. To destroy it. As they have the legacy of Netscape and countless other software companys that we never heard of, because they were bought for code, supplies, workers, whatever.
I feel that the Linux people are more comitted to having a goal to show Microsoft that we won't put up with aggressive tactics, false advertizing (case in point) and other things. I'm sure the list goes on and on.
Microsoft is now "The Machine" that Bill fought so hard against back in the day. He stole. Linux will CREATE. That is only my opinion.
Oh, and since I got into college, more and more I find that coding is art, not science. Ecclectic coding artists all over the planet, and I am sure that they are very passionate about thier cause. I hope to be one of them soon.
So next time everyone is yelling at each other about which is better, think of it more like art critics. They can ramble on forever.
Viper-X
This comment really applies to several of the posts, but I didn't feel like posting until I got this far down.
If you follow the lkm (linux-kernel mailing list), you will see that several of the points mentioned have been addressed in 2.3.x. The one that I remember specifically is that throughput now scales linearly with the number of network cards. IOW, linux should perform nearly as well as NT with 4 NICS. I believe that the tcp/ip stack is/will be multithreaded as well, but I'm not certain.
Avi
To give you a specific answer, I've found that MS Exchange and Visio, when run at the same time on NT 4.0 with SP3 or SP4, lock up about half the time. No idea why, MS has no idea why. But that's the kind of annoying thing that's pushed me to Linux.
That's funny (tm). My NT web app server running :(
w2k beta 1 hasn't BSOD'd or needed a reboot in 666
days. These false claims of NT instability are a
favorite tactic of Linux/Apache advocates
Well... what did you do to cause this? Did you start mucking around with replacing system .dll's? Did you replace some important device drivers? Which piece of hardware was bad? NT DOES NOT JUST CRASH. It's an enterprise OS that runs mission critical shit all over the world. I have never seen NT crash for no apparent reason. It crashed because of something you did.
How about a test where half the load is web serving, and half the load is file sharing?
Better yet, how about a test which runs for 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 hours, with these test bed loads. And say 1000 random static web pages.
Let's see how long it takes for each web server to decrease due to memory leaks, and other problems.
I'm not interested. I have zero problems with NT. Works like a champ on all of my webservers, email, and database servers. I have no real problems to speak of. It just lets me get my work done. But I'm tired of people slamming it and the people that use it like they're some morons. It gets really old.
I personally only use RAID 0 if th server is in a cluster, or in other words, there is another box there to pick up if a hard drive should crash. For instance, how about a MSCS Exchange setup? Two servers, two sets of data, why WOULDN'T you use RAID 0 at LEAST on the primary? You don't need all the internal fault tolerance when you have another box. Of course the cost......
ALG
This coming from another AC? Get a clue.
And who cares if he's an admin or not? If Linux is THAT difficult to get decent performance out of, then it's not worth the CD it's burned on. I mean really. Until Slashdot is a smooth running site, I'll assume that the Linux/Apache combination is just incapable of handling the load, and that these pro-Linux/Apache benchmarks are more bunk.
We have a small office using NT SBServer SP4 and 20 NT clients SP4. We have no professional system-operator.
Status after few month:
BSOD on NT clients while using Word97 with a large documents.
BSOD on NT clients using Paint Shop Pro.
100% chance for BSOD on NT clients sending a print task to the v1.0 HP4500 Color printer driver (don't try this at home).
Reinstalled several NT clients after unrecoverable system-hangups while booting up in the morning.
Rebooting the NT SBServer at least every 3 weeks (sometimes in the lunch-break) when it starts to have problems with file-serving and Exchange (cleaning the mess).
Once the server just forgot all dial-up networking settings (used by Proxy- and Exchange-server).
I suspect the only reason that the server isn't have more problems is that it runs no user-apps.
We use a Compaq PII350 server with brand PII350 clients in original shape.
-- Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people
I don't take it for granted. I run several large sites off NT boxes, and I don't have performance problems like the ones I'm seeing here.
Actually, it said 'Freeware' in the original article too. Also, Open Source is called "Open Source" in German too. Furthermore, c't is certainly aware of the term so I'm a little confused myself why they put used 'freeware'
chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Not true. I've seen much more port aggragation then I've seen Gigabit. It's cheap and more easily supported.
ALG
Reminds me of that joke where this patient goes to a doctor and says something like:
"It hurts when I do this"
"Well, then don't do that!", the doctor replies.
I think NT's reliability has been rehashed over and over, and I hear more complaints about NT crashes than about Linux crashing. I hear more glowing reports about replacing NT with Linux than the other way around.
Then again, YMMV.
That's because you're running netscape. www.microsoft.com serves all IE page requests and then, if it's not doing *anything else*, serves non-IE page requests.
I don't think so... The problem with CGI on NT is with NT's hideous process model.
Why would I want to use a proprietary port of a proprietary standard on my Linux box? Why would I limit my choices by using a "standard" that runs on relatively few OSs?
And I also suggest you read this article, especially the part about "Unfortunately, perceptions of the Linux community are shaped by Web sites such as www.slashdot.org, where self-styled experts who have the collective IQ of an AOL CD post inflammatory propaganda." Linux will never beat Windows if you keep degrading it down like you do.
My web server running w2k beta 1 hasn't rebooted :(
or blued screened in 666 days. These exaggerated
claims of NT instability are a favorite tactic of
Linux/Apache advocates
From personal experience, I *know* NT is that unstable. I worked at a place with 2 linux boxes and 2 NT boxes (they have more now but that's not the point). Linux ran just fine. Other than a hardware malfunction (which didn't cause a crash...it just slowed it down), linux would keep chugging for months at a time.
NT on the other hand was hell. Lockups happened almost every other day, depending on how busy the servers were. It got to the point where we decided to just schedule a nightly process to reboot the servers.
NT was serving web pages and files. Nothing else. Linux was handling mail, DNS, samba, FTP and whatever we wanted to play with at the time.
To give then a *little* credit, I do think development time in NT can be less than Linux. However, the development time was far overshadowed by the hours spent troubleshooting problems caused by Window's instability.
BTW, I think this post was a troll.
Are all the man pages and everything in German? I've used German and Japanese NT. I can't read those languages, but I'm impressed that software could be customized so much. I've read the NT is localized to 120+ languages and that about 70% of Microsoft's revenue comes from outside the United States.
cpeterso
The best thing about this is showing that the only thing slowing Linux down in the other benchmarks is the *four* network cards they added to serve *static* web pages. With one network card, Linux wins. Linux also does better with dynamic pages (and open standards).
Therefore, we can laugh at all NT advocates that claim superiority in benchmarks due to (a) moving stuff into the kernel (b) superior design. (unless they want to use multiple network cards... hmm.)
I guess the only thing we need to improve is simultaneously using more than one network card, but the static serving of web pages should not be the task that we need to improve it for... (ooo, benchmarking enhancements...)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
In recognition of the Micros$ft campaign to end the so-called millenium with a benchmarked bang, I would like to name my latest theorem, the Millenium Theroem. Here it is, along with a two-part theorem which will be a joy to all you mathematically inclined /.ers.
Th. (Millenium theorem, the): Proving NT is better than Linux is equivalent to factoring a prime.
Proof: By construction. We will construct a method to factor a prime, but it will work only on NT, and not on Linux, thereby showing that it is inferior. So once the hard work of factoring is done, the superiority of NT follows automatically, which is the trivial second part.
Write a program in to iterate through set of integers or increasing cardinality, i.e. start with all possible integer combinations of 1 (then 2, then 3...) integers, multiply them and compare to a known prime (see note 1). When this program in written in Visual C++ and run on a P-III box with at least 128 Mb RAM and 4 100 Mbit ethernet cards, it will terminate (see note 2) in less than 2 seconds. For any configuration of Linux (libc5, glibc2; xterm, rxvt; egcs, gcc, etc.) the inefficiency of the OS will prevent termination.
The result follows.
Notes
1. A list of all known primes appears in the book "The Road Ahead of $$$" by William Gates Soph.
2. Mathematically minded stupid Linux people will protest that termination is not guaranteed (the really stupid ones will insist it is impossible). These people should read the conclusive assertion about termination in the book "Discontinuities on a Mobius Strip" by William Gates Soph.
Okay. Say some company that comes out with a web server that can put out 1,000,000 web pages a second. Yeah. One _million_ web pages a second.
But, there's one downside. The server is very flaky. It needs rebooting. You pretty much have to have a staff of 20 fulltime 24/7 people to keep it running.
Meanwhile. Someone else has a web server that only puts out 750,000 wp/s. However, you can have a single person run the server from 8-5.
Anyhoo. Granted. These are benchmarks and only benchmarks. I'd be more interested in seeing more 'real world' benchmarks. I don't know why, exactly, you'd spend 100k on a quad xeon, when you could have 10 dual xeons for that much and have redundancy and redundancy.
And, I doubt that it's very realistic to serve all dynamic pages from a single box. As everyone knows, slashdot runs both from a single box, or has up until a few weeks ago. At around 500k hits a DAY it poops out. IF you were doing a large volume site than that, you'd need multiple db servers and stuff.
Anyhoo.
It just reminded me of the Hulking Giants and the Priesthood of the IBM computers from the early 60's. A company called Digital came along and didn't require all of the people to maintain the computer like the Hulking Giants required.
Since many large sites like Yahoo run FreeBSD it would be nice to see it in the comparisons as well.
a hoobsd.htm
Check out http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/6986/y
It's called 'the common foe' approach:)
Joe
I started with Linux with Volkerding's "Slackware 96" book and CD set... (kernel 2.0.0) Mind you, I had some experience with Solaris, IRIX , etc... Most of the stuff was irrelevant to me, but on scanning through it recently, it covered all of the really useful starters, and didn't really deal heavily with development. I believe Volkerding's still releasing a new book with each new release of Slackware. With the exception of rpm's (should be using source tgz's anyway) and the RH net setup thingys, it covered just about everything you need to know to get going. I know Chapters up here (Calgary, Canada) stocks a large number of beginner to intermediate Linux books - Just go into a big bookstore, like Chapters or Indigo - most of the books are reasonable.
c't (IMHO the only independant mag left) has done much more realistic testing (page sizes, static vs CGI,load, SMP) and reported their full results. At less than 1000 hits/second, Linux soundly trounces NT.
But look toward the end of the article: with dual 100 NIC's and 1000+ hit/sec loads, NT pulls ahead. Clearly, something could be optimized further in the Linux TCP/IP stack or ethernet drivers. Perhaps finer grained kernel locking? Maybe we should thank Mindcraft for helping debug Linux! I'm sure it was by accident.
I agree with you. My w2k beta 1 box hasn't needed :(
a reboot or blue screened in 666 days. These false
claims of NT instability are a frequent tactic of
Linux advocates
FreeBSD's SMP support is still new, and from my simple experimentation appears to be similar to Linux 2.0.x -- one big lock. I dunno about Net/Open. BSDers feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Perhaps we should just admit that NT is, for the momment, a better high performance web/file server. It is no shame in giving Microsoft their due. Whether they can continue to be the front runner is the question. Apache/Linux is a fine combination for webservers on a T1, which describes most of the webservers out there.
;)
The real question is, do you want to come in on the weekend to reboot NT?
Coding is more productive than benchmark anyway.
Item: Walked in one morning to a new client I was doing some work for. After the initial "here's the computer room" talk, we walked in and I hit the Windows key. System hard-locked. I expected the client to run out, I even got my car keys ready. "it does that all the time". Not a moment of concern from him.
Item: We have an NT box at work. When getting files off the Samba server, it crashes. It was a factory install, from a very popular reputable vendor. It is designed to be as untweaked as humanly possible (its a testbed for a client). Therefore going in and optimizing everything would be against policy; but its crashing and 2 NT guys can't figure out why.
Item: Another NT box here crashes randomly about once every week. All it ever runs is Netscape and a few things like Office and Pagemill. It is likewise from a reputable vendor, untouched internally.
Item: An NT machine at a client site went down. The box didn't have a power button - NT is so reliable, after all. I drive in to reboot it. I push the reset button. Nothing. I have to crawl behind the rack (I'm 6' tall) and unplug it. Customer response: "That happens sometimes." Apparently the short guy wasn't there to fix it.
Item: My Linux machines have rebooted only due to 1)kernel upgrades or 2)extended power outages that strain the UPS. And the occasional HD upgrade or other hardware change. The NT boxen in question were running simple stuff; they were just sitting there, running IIS or Proxy Server or whatever. They weren't running a zillion apps. They weren't on boxes thrown together from spares. They were machines built to conform to the HCL, with the idea of servicing big clients, who do big things. You, sir, apparently have a Magic Dog.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I think your point number 3 is exactly what this benchmark is supposed to say to the NT zombies who had been recently droning on about how NT is faster than Linux on all hardware configurations about the MindCraft tests.
*VERY* offtopic:
:-)).
I noticed this: "Linux was equipped with a freshly translated Apache 1.3.6."
s/translated/compiled/
Sometimes Germans use "übersetzen" for "to compile", if you look up in your English->German dictionary you will probably find "to translate" for "übersetzen" in the first place and "to compile" not at all.
I think this has happend because c't is using an external translation service without much computer knowledge (Babelfish 2.0 beta
(BTW: I didn't find the German version online and don't have the printed issue so I had to read the English one...).
NT5 Beta 1 was released in September 1997.
cpeterso
not for me, mind you, but for the guy I'm installing for.
/have/ to see a command line c) I don't have Caldera :)
/very/ basic command line stuff on up... any suggestions? he's been reading the websites mentioned (plus slashdot :) but I think he'd do better with some form of paper...
he doesn't program, and isn't exactly fluent on his windows partition either. I figure setting up RH6.0 is a good option becasue a) I have it b) you don't ever
he's really into this, however (which is great), but I don't know a good reference to steer him to for everything from
Lea
Well, this may be one of the things that slowed linux down a lot but this is not the only.
Hopefully Linux 2.4 with the new scheduler, a lot of patches, a threaded IP stack (this seemed to be one of the things that slowed Linux) and a way tobind a card to a CPU and Linux can severely improve it's performance.
I don't say that all these things are planned for 2.4 but since these seemed to be the major bottlenecks in the kernel there probably will be some people to work on it.
BTW: it really seems that MS searched a flaw in Linux, did a biased benchmark to show Linux in a very poorly way. They biased the benchmark so the Linux community respond by asking to re-run the benchmark where they would lose again (becauseof the Linux flaw they found).
This may be a little bit paranoiac but this is a good try from Microsoft.
And also I want to thank Microsoft to found a research lab to found Linux weakness so we can fix them
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
seems to me that its more important to have
someone who knows what they are doing than
it is to have a specific software setup, or
even hardware setup. the only way to get
these things to race is to fine tune them, but
alot of people just havent had the experience
to know what to tune. in the end, if you want
'the fastest most reliable web server' your
best bet is to hire somebody who knows what they are doing.
Being a complete newbie, can someon point me to a site or tell me exactly what makes Linux et el different to other os's and how it is used as opposed to say (I hate to say this word) Windows?
Ta from a hopeless girl.
"I only tell the truth, that way I dont have to recall what I said"
So they could also use the English version of NT and include English SP5.
cpeterso
It states that they had to have special kernal made so Linux could perform better. Are these going to be adopted into out kernals any time soon?
There was one test that NT beat the hell out of linux, but that was it. After seening all these marks, I think that we can really start pulling together to make the wierd higher end bench marks even better so that any test that is run to compare NT and Linux, Linux will pull a head in at the very least 60% of the marks.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
It's great that some nice folks are trying to show how little the Mindcraft study means when viewed in the cold light of reality. We can also expect some other nice folks to show how Linux and NT uptimes and general reliability compare in real world settings.
Unfortunately, it won't matter much in the PHB world.
I imagine that for the next 5 years or so, whenever I am in a meeting where server issues are being discussed, the pro-MS types will repeatedly and consistently drag out the Mindcraft study to back their claims and nobody will want to hear about any other study talking about real world conditions. If I do bring them up, somebody will say "Oh Mike, we know you are an anti-MS bigot, your studies are nothing but sour grapes pressed out after the Mindcraft benchmark clearly showed Linux to be inferior."
Am I being too cynical?
Think about it, Mindcraft benchmarked the specific scenarios where NT performance is better and left out all other scenarios. Clearly even before the "study" MS had run a whole suite of tests and chosen the specific scenarios to be publicly benchmarked by their independent vassal. These results are then broadcast loud and clear to all the check signing PHBs, and the Linux folks have to acknowledge their validity because the Linux camp willingly participated in a skewed study. We got duped and from now on, this will be THE valid study of NT vs. Linux. All other tests will be too late and too bad. Vexed to nightmare by MS-Marketing.
*sigh*
An important point gets lost in all the discussion about these benchmarks: Both NT/IIS and Linux/Apache perform astoundingly well, and both perform much better than they would if the other didn't exist. Developers for both sets of products borrow good ideas from the other, and both race to make improvements to keep up.
MICROS~1 flacks like to blather on about needing their monopoly position in the market to protect their "freedom to innovate," but where they have no competition, they don't innovate. Why can't they acknowledge that the only reason IIS doesn't suck is because Apache exists?
I wish they had similar competition on the desktop. If they did, maybe I wouldn't need to reboot my Win98 4x/day.
Sorry, appearently I failed to avoid being unclear: I love the Gates quote because it makes him sound stupid. Right: either 1 and p don't "count", and there are no factors, or they do, and they're the only ones. Either way, it's not the intractable problem that it is often mistaken for, and on which RSA encryption is based.
I wasn't referring to the Gates quote, however, even though I mentioned it in passing. What I am amazed, amused, and a bit depressed at is how often people here make the same mistake in their
>>>>>[...] how to factor large prime numbers [...]
>>>>I can factor large prime numbers in my head, instantly. Try me.
>>>Oh yeah? Factor [some large number].
>>One, and [the large number], assuming it's actually prime.
>Doh!
See what I mean?
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
If you have to reboot your Win98 PC four times a day can I humbly suggest that you have problems that aren't MS-induced ? I have installed Win98 on a variety of plain vanilla and name brand PC's of varying vintages and the thing just works (yes, I've had install issues but once it boots it seems to keep going). I wouldn't use it for mission critical shit but MS tell you that anyway. Maybe your problem is a little closer to home than Redmond.
I guess people replying didn't really read what I wrote. I said ``[RAID 0 is] quite common in many shops that need high reliability, because you don't use software RAID or internal RAID controller cards in such systems. You use external RAID boxes.'' [Emphasis added.]
External hardware RAID is a heck of a lot more reliable, and usually faster than, software RAID and in-box RAID controller cards. (A typical setup has two SCSI controllers in the host, each hooked to one of the two controllers in the RAID box, so you can lose a host controller, a cable or a RAID box controller without going down.)
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Pardon me but, wasn't the debate over NT vs. Linux focused on NT 5.0/2000. These benchmarks are of a NT 4.0 system. My point is, what are you rejoicing about when it has been proof for some time that Linux absolutley kills NT 4.0. The focus right now is on Win 2000 vs. Linux, not these NT 4.0 vs Linux benchmarks. These just state the obvious.
Talking about pictures:
The Siemens Primergy 870 is one of the most ugly computers I have ever seen in my life. For 100000DM I would expect something cool looking. But a cool look and Intel inside doesn't match, does it?
Oh! Allow me to correct myself. My 386 w/ 16 MB :(
RAM running w2k beta 1 hasn't required a reboot
or blue screened in 1666 days, and it runs rings
around my PIII running Debian Linux. These
exaggerated claims of NT's instability are a
frequent tactic of Linux advocates
because even though Ive been using computers (amiga then pc) for 18 years, I have no idea what makes os's different from each other.
:) Love Ms Jute aka Natalie Domestic sites: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5380/cyberhussy/
I can use almost any windows based progrm and master it within an hour or two (this isnt bragging, just fact) but tell me to learn programming of any type and I get a little daunted, so ok, I taught myself basic when I had a little 64, then learned some DOS thru necessity, and mastered HTML cos I was damned if I couldnt design a website better than any I saw back in 1994 when I first got online.
Then I decided DESIGN was where I was at, not development, but then I found out you need to combine the two and I had to learn all kinds of new applications.
Then the gods who are Macromedia invented these great little things called ShockWave and Dreamweaver and I didnt have to learn all the new stuff anymore.. whether this is a good thing or not, well... thats for each individual to decide...
The bottom line is thanks to my incredible laziness mixed with a determination to do everything for myself and better than everyone else, I find that I NEED to be able to use Unix/Linux effectively and not have to run to the guy behind the box
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5380/
Commercial site: in progress : launch date about end of july
ICQ: 200390
"I only tell the truth, that way I dont have to recall what I said"
The 666 days (number of the Beast) should be enough of a giveaway...
you fucking slut, what you do know about BeOS? faggot. fucking faggot. fuck you1!!!
Our NT sysadmins say that MS currently recommends you stay with SP4 unless there is a particular problem with it that's fixed with SP5.
I agreed with the earlier comment that the tests should really run for many weeks at a time - I've just spent 2 weekends debugging an NT box that keeps crashing, but more to the point, if SP5 has performance features they are no use if they cause crashes during a test like this.
/.
cpeterso
The heavy load is mostly due to heavy rendering
dual PII 300's
I'm no longer worried about it because the
rendering software has been ported to Linux.
The crashes would happen after about 3 day's of
rendering 24hrs. This happens to NT in alot of
animation shops. They are not meant for
high end computing...service packs are in place
and all related hardware is top notch.
glad that you have fun with NT but for some reason
all of my UNIX workstations (under the same 24/7
load as the renderfarm of NT's) rarely hiccup.
There are versions of Linux in a vast array of languages, from French and German to Korean, Chinese, Japanese and Icelandic - the latter I think illustrates how open source is crucial to smaller language populations, since Microsoft very publicly refused to do an Icelandic version of Windows.
iirc, slashdot runs off of a single T1.
The large sites you run probably have a lot more bandwidth at hand.
What the hell are you talking about? I never understand why PHP developers keep talking about how much they dislike Perl syntax. C, Perl, and PHP have highly similar syntaxes. The PHP authors even admit that they took a lot from Perl. But I guess if a person says they know C it makes them elite and separate from web developers who are stuck with an ugly little language like Perl
Ditto.
news flash: personal computers + linux/NT/bsd are not
the same as vxworks on a space vessel. they arent designed with reliability in mind,
which is the only option you have if you want something to really be reliable.
i crashed linux running mt. ok, so i didnt 'crash' it it just
took up all available memory and sat there unable to do respond to anything for hours on end.
how do you know NT isnt doing the same thing? maybe the NT console just died?
that happens all the time in X, esp with that shitty DGA crap.
linux has done marvelous work with the ultra shitty x86 architecture
and NT is not bad, but you cant build a solid house on shit.
i heard someone scuffling outside your window!
its the microsoft slashdot ac!
It's amazing, amusing, and kind of depressing how many people get this wrong, especially on /., and especially on a page where I've already seen a sig of Bill Gates' immortal quote on the matter.
Once again: factoring primes is meaningless as a problem, since the factors of a prime p are 1 and p. Factoring numbers in general is more interesting. You could even say it's easy, since factoring a number n is O(n*log(n)). It's only exponential in the number of bits, and I've always thought it was a bit weird to be impressed at the fact that the value of n is O(2^(log(n))). However, since log(n), i.e., the number of bits needed to represent n, can be set arbitrarily, it is hard to factor large numbers, but only because they are really large numbers.
It's easy to write down a number that's so big you can't count to it -- try it.
I know this is simple stuff, but people keep saying it wrong. They probably know it and are just speaking carelessly, but it really is a dumb mistake to make. Just say "factor large numbers".
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Well, if X crashes you log in remotely, kill X and start it again. No problem.
If the system is not responding but still alive, you can jump into the in-kernel debugger and try some voodoo. (Well, on NetBSD I can try that, don't know for linux...).
Most highend commercial forms of Unix *do* blow NT out of the water: maybe not on price per transaction but that's like saying a Jag is more expensive than a Saturn ... you get what you pay for.
;-) I know Jordan Hubbard (one of the FreeBSD gang) would love a big 4 way SMP Xeon to hack on in his living room ... As SMP gets more widespread free Unix kernels will get more threaded.
....
Most developpers of free forms of Unix haven't even had access to a simple *lowend* SMP boxes until recently. Linus gets whatever hardware he asks for but what about the rest of the army
It looks like Sun is really the only vendor really committed to improving commercial Unix. After merging with Compaq DEC has become a huge behemoth like IBM. HP-UX looks adrift. SGI, well I doubt they'll plough profits from selling NT boxes back into R&D in the IRIX division. NT performance is bound to improve against most existing Unices in such an environment. Note how it does not beat Sun - ever - except on fileserver tasks when Sun is using SAMBA. But I bet a Sun box could beat NT as an NFS server so
Factoring the product of two prime numbers, however, is not so easy..
:-p
cpeterso
What are you running on it when it crashes?
They are running NT, when NT crashes. If you've managed to run NT without a problem for months, consider yourself fortinute and move on. Other people are obviously having less luck with NT.
It crashed because of something you did.
That's what he said. He right-clicked on "My Computer" and it crashed. Ergo, it crashed because of something he did.
Talk about obvious...
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Yes! I have found the solution of every NT problem in your words of wisdom:
> I have never seen NT crash for no apparent reason.
> It crashed because of something you did.
Ergo: Don't do anything with your NT server and it
*WILL NOT CRASH*.
I stop doing anything with any NT box.
Thank you!
Looking at www.beowulf.org, I see that they do use special software to achieve high performance with multiple NICs. In particular, Beowulf Ethernet Channel Bonding.
Has anyone tried this in a web server environment? Maybe this isn't the best long-term solution, but for now, it should kick ass! Perhaps c't could be convinced to try a retest?
--
Jake
Is it because they don't understand the shareware concept?
heh
There was a time when I ran an mp3 website/ftp. At the time I set it up all I had was an old 486/dx4-120. I found about 32MB of old 32pin SIMMs, and scrounged up some old IDE (not even EIDE!) hard drives. I installed Linux with Apache (sorry can't remember the versions), and had a webserver that blew our NT-shop away. The site only crashed on me three times, and that was from teardrop/land attacks; after the kernel patch, it didn't crash again.
How much traffic did I push? One day I pushed 15,000 hits and over 8GB of information out of my box (webserver alone, I have no idea what the ftp traffic was). My average was around 4GB of traffic with unmatched stability. I'd love to see NT do that with a 486.
"Scheduling, and obviously some IP stack probs"
- And there are already some really interesting enhancements in Linux 2.3.x for exactly that.
Together with the rumor that Linus is releasing 2.4.x this autumn already, this will make sure the most important bottlenecks will be solved soon.
So don't worry, we'll get them in the end.
It's interesting that a more even-handed test by Fischer-Price rates the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as faster than Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary.
(point being made? apples/oranges)
Using SP 4 instead of 5 makes sense, because Service Pack 5 was intended to be more of a bugfix release than anything. It's more stable (IMO) than SP4 or SP3, although there are known problems with RAS and a couple other things.
However, the tests used Service Pack *3*, which not only is seriously old, also misses several enhancements and security holes along the way.
They did manage to upgrade the Linux kernel to 2.2.9, noting that the stock 2.2.5 kernel in their distribution was slower.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
To try PHP... I didn't know what it was before (except that it was 'the apache answer to ASP, but then better').
But, being a C developer myself, after reading your posting, I think I'll take a look at it soon (though I don't do any Web developing).
Thanks man!
While I believe that a CGI vs. ASP comparison might be interesting, from a maintenance perspective, ASP is a piss-poor answer. I wouldn't suggest that _anybody_ should lock themselves into a proprietary closed standard that limits them to _1_ operating system. The reason this can become a big problem comes alongside with your second paragraph. The fact is, that in any sufficiently complex real-world application, your web server is really only a small part of the equation. Your back end needs to be there. Why would you limit what you can put on the back end by tying the (relatively unimportant) front end to a specific operating system?
Any developers who use "MS-designed dynamic content method[s]" are making life more difficult for them and their successors, when they need to look at other non-MS solutions. Essentially this person has tied future developers to one of a) stay with MS for all eternity b) Redesign the site ground up. If you were an IS manager, how would you respond to that?
Do you have a URL that indicates that Microsoft used SP4 instead of SP5 for the ZD tests?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I don't know if the processor-NIC affinity is so ridiculous. It actually does make alot of sense for those bizarre moments when you will have >2 NICs.
Apparently it will be enabled by default in Windows 2000, so I wouldn't call it cheating either.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
So, 2.2.9 s not the latest and geatest Linux version...
Unless you are serving to an Intranet, in which case you might actually have a switched 100Mbit network.
Multiple NICs might not be that common for web serving, where speed can be gained through HTML+application design more easily, but it's used all the time for other things.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Gee, seems like it takes more skill to run an NT box efficiently than a Linux box.
Stability and robustness are not just about how a system behaves when there's nothing wrong. Stability and robustness include how a system behaves when presented with problems. As for "running some strange random program from a noname dev shop," there are few (user space) things that I've seen choke a *NIX system that hard, regardless of who developped them. I vastly dislike the Microsoft apologist method of blaming any and all problems on third party hardware or software. An operating system should behave properly, even where an application does not.
I found it kind of strange that Linux performed better with SMP turned off than with it turned on, unless you applied "special patches".
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186-1/pic1
Consider that there's been a bunch of SMP improvements done the Mindcraft test, and that it took an unreleased SMP kernel to beat a released Uniprocessor kernel. (Are the "special patches" in 2.2.10).
No intent to spread FUD, but perhaps Linux's SMP support isn't quite ready for prime time. The numbers seem to look that way.
(Perhaps this could explain the cognative dissonance between the Mindcraft/ZD results and the average Slashdotter testimonial? How much better would Linux have done if they just turned off the SMP support?)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Maybe they switched
> I'm expecting this to show up in the Microsoft Zealot camp (where do MS Zealots hang out, anyway?).
comp.os.linux.advocacy
They opened several "hahaha" threads within hours of the announcement of the results.
Oh, yeah. And some of them habitually use the kind of insults and scatology that Mindcraft published as as "portrait" of the Linux userbase.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Slashdot isn't all that reliable. I have problems with it all the time. (Connection refused, partial pages, broken HTML, extra blank stories, etc...)
I know people who have been 'bugged' hate to hear this kind of reply, but...I'd bet a mountain of money that I've spent as much time on slashdot as you have this year (I'm too ashamed to admit how much) and I don't remember having any problems with the site at all.
Isn't it possible that the problem lies in some corrupting influence somewhere between the internet and your screen?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The MS funded tests of Linux/NT were clearly flawed. The technical one-sidedness of tuning one NOS versus another is what makes the tests suspect (at least to me!). HOWEVER the Linux/OSS community is making the same error when trying to run CGI based tests on NT. All of the IIS information warns against using CGI. Whenever a CGI call is made, NT makes a new process for the operation. However an ASP uses only a process thread under IIS. Much better use of memory and system resources.
Fairness cuts both ways. Running CGI on NT is akin to the detuning that Mindcraft did to Linux during the first test.
BTW, multiple NICs are fairly common in servers. The enduser effect is of much greater speed then trying to shove all the information down one pipe.
Well, that's odd. In practice most porn sites use unix-flavors. Linux, BSD, Solaris seem to be the popular.
Looking on FreeBSD's homepage, in the section of companies that use FreeBSD, they have a porn-o company listed in there. I suppose that is supposed to make me want to use FreeBSD, just for the fact that porno sites run it (I like FBSD, but I find this rather odd)
I don't know. It has its moments for me, and I'm connected with a T1.
It is apparant that NT whoops up in SMP mode anyways... but i wondered about that myself. I still dont see it making THAT much of a difference anyways
You Like Science?
You Like bottomquark.
crash an OS?
Mindcraft do a test that shows NT beats Linux. The Linux community cries fowl. ZDNet offer to do the test again, this time with both MS and Redhat/Linux guys there. The Linux community cries fowl.
Some guys go and do the test them selves to show Linux is better, without Microsoft present. Linux community cries WHAT A WONDERFUL benchmark. Perfectly done, and oh, look, Linux won.
Actually, PHP's performance isn't that great at the moment for high loads. However, it *is* good enough, and the flexibility it gives is sufficient that I for one use it on my sites. Either way, Zend should send PHP performance through the roof in the near future. They have some simple ASP v Zend benchmarks on the site, too...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Personally speaking, I came out against the initial Mindcraft benchmark because it was shoddily done, with an eye to producing the numbers Microsoft wanted. There were demonstrable errors in the running of the benchmark that heavily favored NT. I also have serious problems with Mindcraft the company (or Mindcraft the guy); the benchmarks prove that he has absolutely no integrity.
I don't have as much of a problem with the second set of numbers, although I think the c't tests showed that the platform and setup were carefully chosen to stack the deck against Linux (besides being completely impractical - you're going to serve enough data to keep four 100MB cards busy, and you're installing a RAID, but you're not going to protect any of the data you're serving with a RAID 1 or 5? Right...)
I also didn't have much of a problem with the earlier PC Week benchmarks that positioned NT in a good light - although I still think that, if they're going to evaluate ASP, they need to evaluate mod_perl or mod_php as an equivalent.
Several reasons for people not believing the Mindcraft benchmarks have been given.
One rather important one seems to have been left out:
Our own personal experience suggested completely different results.
If you're standing in a room with a green chair, and somebody walks in and says, "Hey, what a cool zebra you got there", odds are you're going to disagree with them.
That's what happend here.
scottwimer
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
Um, RAID 0 actually reduces reliability.
RAID 1 (mirroring) provides high reliability. RAID 5 (striping with parity) produces high reliability and more space with a speed penalty. RAID 0 provides more space and lower reliability, since any one hard disk failure caused the whole array to fail.
Please check out Netcraft's Web server survey where it is quite visible what's been happening since Mindcraft-1.
IIS goes up, Apache goes down.
This is the exact opposite of the previous trend over many years, which just goes to show that Microsoft's Marketing Department haven't lost their mind control quite as much as many people believe. FUD still works. Meaningless benchmarks showing that my mini accellerates faster than your Ferrari (carefully ignoring the fact that the mini was being driven off a cliff and the ferrari was towing a double-b up a steep hill) still work.
I think it's time that people just give up advocation and accept the fact that there will always be stupid people, and those stupid people will easily be duped by marketing departments of large corporations. Stupid people deserve to run Microsoft Windows. Let them run it. Let them put up with its incompatibilities, its pathetic security, its poor performance, its total instability, its lack of standards conformance. Their smart competitors will soon crush their business. Their systems will run into the ground. It happens on a daily basis all around the world already. And what do the smart consultants say when they're called in to fix the problem?
I told you in the first place you should have run Unix. By the way, my fee has tripled.
Matt
I think denying benchmarks until you find ones that match what you want is a Bad Thing(tm). While these may be 'more fair' Linux still has a number of problems. Scheduling, and obviously some IP stack probs.
What exactly is it that you're amazed, amused, and depressed at? We're making fun of Bill G. precisely because his quote doesn't make sense, either if you leave 1 and p in, or leave them out. So your remaining discussion is nice, but irrelevant.
"Coding is more productive than benchmark anyway"
A good bug report is very useful and this can be harder to find people being able to fill a good bug report than to code.
a benchmark is not a bug report but the aim is to test a software/hardware under different kind of pressure.
When there are enough details on the config this can be useful to detect flaws, so this can be useful too.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
It seems that the battle between Micro$oft and the Linux community would never end. I just want to know who's own the truth?
Read harder.
And think harder.
NT was significantly faster than Linux in one "pretty much" unrealistic benchmark.
Linux was massively faster in two "somewhat" unrealistic benchmarks.
Linux was slightly faster in the other benchmarks.
So please tell me why do you think that NT/IIS is "a better high performance web/file server"???
The point is that NT is optimized for one single case, possibly only needed by something like a mega high volume porn site (static pages, as Alan Cox pointed out), and linux does better in all other cases.
And if you want to server MANY files, you need to buy TEN NT boxes instead of ONE Linux box.
For the T1: Linux is a fine solution for a 100MBit site. A T1 is 1.5 MBit.
Please do not confuse the facts.
Well a few points:
:)
1) NT tends to not handle high loads as gracefully as Linux. Linux/Apache tend to slow to a crawl under high loads, but I've never managed to crash the server. I've done that a bunch of times under NT (usually when running SQL server and IIS on the same machine... but running various combinations of Oracle, Sybase or MySQL with Apache under Linux doesn't seem to cause a problem...)
2) I've found the most unreliable NT servers are the ones that people have been hacking around on, tweaking, etc. Vanilla NT with everything else carefully installed seems fairly stable. Mind you, I'd never run a serious application on one, but you CAN get them working reliably. Its harder to keep non-administrators (ie, clueless management) from messing around on NT servers than Linux servers. (I once built a sandbox system that ran a clone of the system in a chroot'ed sandbox with the logins on the first six vc's pointing at it, with one on nine pointing to the real system -- I guessed that the owner of the company I was working for at the time was monkeying around in the system and that's why Linux kept crashing. After doing that, the sandboxed system kept flaking out, but the production one stayed up!)
3) Buggy COM objects and ISAPI objects are prone to crashing various parts of NT, like IIS and for whatever reason, causing bluescreens. Lots of sites use not-so-stable third party COM objects and ISAPI's and from experience, it can be a real bitch to figure out whats causing the server to crap out under high loads in that case. The last major website I built using NT, I ended up rewriting all the COM objects we'd bought in Java so I had source and could fix the bugs that were my fault.
4) Slashdot isn't all that reliable. I have problems with it all the time. (Connection refused, partial pages, broken HTML, extra blank stories, etc...)
#4 isn't a flame at slashdot -- god knows I spend enough time on here commenting on things and reading the site. Slashdot is amazingly stable for the way its architected (running on a single server, no redundancy at the server level or the hardware level, etc...) I wouldn't run a high traffic site I was paid to build like that, but they're doing great for bootstrapping the site themselves.
"Anonymous Coward" has a link to someone's email address. How exactly is that anonymous?
NT running Apache? Seems that would eleminate whatever advantages Apache might provide.
I have never had a problem with slashdot.
not once.
I used to be on a modem now I'm on a 10base
network connected to a T3 and I haven't had
problems with slashdot....
godjob.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Question: How long has your system been running without a reboot? Yes, I know you haven't BSODed in months, but if you power down or reboot every day, it proves nothing. Even Win9x can manage (most days) to run for a day without rebooting.
NT Workstation is much better than 9x as a workstation OS. But as a server, it still doesn't cut it.
I couldn't agree more. I think that we sould just admit that Windows NT is better on High End Hardware (for now,) and that Linux is better on lower end hardware. Benchmarks don't mean shit, stability and price/performance is what matters.
This was actually my point. ;)
:)
NT appears a bit faster as a web server in a few tests. Linux is far more reliable. FreeBSD more so than Linux. These things are merely a snapshot of the current situation. Doesn't make Linux less attractive to me. Doesn't mean I'll be fdisking my penguins for NT. Just means for hardware I(nor my company) can afford, NT may handle more peak traffic.
Of course, Sparcs are *really* the beast for truly
intense traffic.
Yea...IIS's web server is actually part of the kernel. Its nice to finally see someone who knows what they are talking about. *said with sarcastic tone*
Excuse me. Do you see the name posted attached to the end of the letter. Girc? It stands for Sean Grskovich. It was as easy for you to ignore that as it was for you to ignore the reasons why /. sometimes is down. I'll tell you what tell us your NT server address and we'll all hit it at once and we'll see how it handles the load. So you are saying if one site has one problems despite the reason why, this makes the software no good? In that case we had better throw away all computers.
There have been some problems with Slashdot, but not many since they added their fancy new VA Research dual-processor system. Before then, they were running on pretty overloaded hardware paid for out of their own pockets, and it's hard to blame them for problems in that context.
D
----
"what do you people keep doing that makes Windows NT crash?"
It shouldn't matter what everyone's doing, it still shouldn't crash. I should be able to run any software concurrently, and have whatever services I like running, and it should be able to run fully loaded (high memory usage, high cpu usage) for extended periods of time.
I find (on my desktop NT box) that if I start using many applications at once (thus filling up most of the memory but not all), there is a tendency for it to lock up and it need me to reboot. Often explorer.exe crashes such that I cannot recover/restart it (resulting in screen garbage) and I am forced to power cycle it.
I will admit that I haven't had a BSOD with this machine, but I do (intentionally) reboot it every so often, and it does have 96Mb ram. My previous experience with a lower powered NT box, with only 32Mb was a whole lot worse. I was always able to make that crash (since this was previously, it probably was a few service packs down to my current computer) very easily, and get to the BSOD. I'd just start running a few apps simultaneously and use them all at once, and generally load up the machine, and it would fall over.
My experiences with Linux are much different. Since I got a modern laptop, (with suspend modes) I've been able to leave linux running on it without a single reboot. Among the applications I leave running are several instances of netscape, some compiles and other programs, that use up most of the memory (including virtual mem) and do a similarly lot of stuff including apache etc. Although netscape crashes, I have never experienced system instability on it, maybe slow response when I had many compiles going at once, but no lock ups.
ZD net is not the best example. I actually have very few problems connecting to them.
However: www.microsoft.com is another matter altogether - I can actually retreive a page maybe 3-5 out of 10 tries. And page loading is usually measured in *minutes*...
And no, it's not my ISP...I have no trouble with most other sites...microsoft is simply overloaded.
Posted by ChristianC:
t /Mac_vs_World.html
t /Ready_to_Serve.html
It's interesting that a more even-handed test at NewMedia rates OS X Server as seven times faster than NT:
http://www.newmedia.com/newmedia/99/06/labrepor
The full review is here:
http://www.newmedia.com/newmedia/99/06/labrepor
I find it hillarious that you refer us to a zdnet article to support your anti-linux (actually anti-idiot but zdnet isn't the place for a fair discussion of either...;) ).
I guess it is a part of our society that is more cynical everyday to notice the people that are being morons than the rest of them. I think that most of us (linux zealots) are reasonable and can post without flaming people. I don't ever hear of any backlash against NT zealots who post stupid shit flaming linux people *cough*
I just don't understand why we can't get along? I don't have anything against people that like NT... I may personally think that they just probably haven't really *used* linux on a regular basis and are thus ignorant of it's splendor, but that isn't a personal problem that I have with them. In short I think that the amount of idiot NT users is probably pretty close to the amount of idiot linux zealots so nobody has any right to point any fingers.
that is all
Linux is a completly free and open os. This means that anyone can re-program the OS for better stability, speed or what ever you would like. Linux has a programmer base of several thousand people around the world. Basically it's still behind in some area, but in alot of areas it is ahead.
Windows is a closed os, so you can't reprogram the internals and costs at the least $80.
There are alot of diffrence between the two thou.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Whoa.. I was just looking at asp2php today!
It's not 100% free/gpl/open source... but free for personal use.
http://home.i1.net/~naken/asp2php/
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Yuck.
:-)
How on earth is it possible that even C't makes this mistake? I thought they would have heard of www.opensource.org! Apparently, they have not...
Otherwise it's a good article.
My fl. 0.01 (which is even less than $0.01
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
I dunno, I've just been readint he comments and I was suprised to see how many people _didn't_ say "See!!!! Linux rools!!! NT sux!" and how many people _did_ say "benchmarks suck"
:(
I was also seeing a couple of reasonable comments from people who I recognise as being MS advocates.
Damn! I thought we were getting somewhere.
It will be a wonderful day when people start thinking before posting to Slashdot. Informed discussion between people using varieties of OSes, apps, computers, etc without the obstinance would be nirvana.
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
While c't usually delivered good articles the benchmark article is irrelevant.
:(
1/ As c't observes itself delivering static HTML
pages is not the most interesting factor.
2/ Comparing Perl CGIs on Linux/Apache with
(Active)Perl CGIs on NT/IIS does not lead to meaningful results. One would use ASP on high performance web sites on NT/IIS - so c't should have compared performance of CGIs on Linux/Apache and and of ASPs on NT/IIS with same functionality.
3/ c't tried to factor in other operations like database access done from CGIs. Unfortunately, they just did a sleep(3). As database operations may be both CPU and IO intensive the sleep(3) approach does not simulate a real life situation and does not lead to meaningful results either.
It's too bad - I hoped for a good benchmark in which Linux would clearly win!
This is the embarrassing line:
"As clients we used eight or sixteen 486 and higher PCs respectively, operating under Linux and hooked up to the server with a switched 10-MBit connection. Each of these clients operated up to 64 instances of a program loop making HTTP GET requests and accepting, evaluating and logging the server's response. This test program's source code can be downloaded from [2]. All in all, up to 1024 clients made parallel HTTP requests this way."
Of course NT is pretty shittly on reliability, but this is not a test to hang our hats on, red or otherwise.
Bob
Doh.. Sorry about that. I'm at work, so i'm not paying attention to my spelling. Just trying to talk on the phone, log calls and then type this stuff in between.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Anybody with 4 network cards of this sort in a system would need 2.5 OC-3 lines to connect too, and they would probably be running a load-balancing switch.
We are no longer talking webserver only. A machine with 4 (or more) cards might be an intranet router/switch as well as server. With the cards connecting different subnets you might get all sorts of unbalanced network traffic.
Did I misunderstand or did they compare a 400Mhz G3 with 128MBs RAM worth less (I assume) than $5000 to a 100000DM server with 2GB of memory and four Xeon processors? If so then I'd say it fared pretty well. If only they (apple) could iron out that fatal error bug.
guarantees do we have that these tests were any less biased than the ones that said NT won?
The publisher of c't, Heise-Verlag, sells besides c't, a magazine dealing with applications and desktop software but also more general IT issues, iX, a magazine rather addressing the network administrator. Both magazines express a quite unbiased attitude, where c't naturally focuses on software that runs on MS and Apple. I was surprised to see the benchmarks published in c't and not in iX as they address the server rather than the desktop issue. At the same time I'd say I'd have been surprised if they would manipulate their results in favour of Linux, or to design the benchmarks in order to favour Linux. It would not make much sense with respect to their comsumer base.
I think all the Linux developers can let out a huge sigh of relief that their baby doesn't run like a dog (as claimed by MS), but can and does keep up with the big boys! And thanks to MS, it can only get better!!!
I still feel that the test is still aiming at Linus's achillies heal, so to say. How about rerunning the test on the old '486 in loft' hardware that the real world has got rather then $40K kit MS rolled out!
And don't underestimate the 'come in over the weekend to reboot it' factor (from a previous thread, too lazy to look it up but it made me chuckle!) - we're all too busy chatting away to have to keep an eye on the kit every second.
(Sorry - Connection refused - MS Proxy Server 2 - Too busy - Please try later)
All spelling mistakes are in my mind and are faithfully reproduced by my fingers
It sounds like they need a good NT person?
There's something wrong with NT if you need a "good NT persion" just to keep it from crashing! Linux doesn't need that. A "good os person" is necessary to get the best possible from any os of course. But stability shouldn't need tweaking.
CGI is not appropriate technology just because WinNT can't handle it? A lot of ISP's allow CGI for their users and _not_ ASP or mod_perl.
Someone OUT OF NOWHERE releases a "real-world" benchmark comparing Apache and IIS ... hopefully the first of many.
It helps that this is an accomplished firm (read: they know how to pursue a benchmark), and an accountable one at that (read: they publish the results, knowing full-well that ONE SIDE or the other will scrutinize their results).
In a strange way, I'm happy that the results weren't exactly a landslide.
We need more benachmarks like this (read: published by people who play fair, and who let the music do the talking).
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
Having all cpu's working on serving the busy card is then a good idea.
Anybody with 4 network cards of this sort in a system would need 2.5 OC-3 lines to connect too, and they would probably be running a load-balancing switch.
Lowmag.net
One think I hate about PHP is complete lack of unnified DB interface ... They should come up with something like mini ODBC ( wrappers) for each of those connectSybase, connectOracle etc...
Meanwhile the best quake (my favorite, and most popular--more popular than q1dm right now) mod is Team Fortress (open source)... Quake is the best game there is (I really believe that!) but if it was open source I bet it would be better - we KNOW the game logic (which is open source) became better because of it.
Meanwhile I think that binding a NIC to a CPU is a benchmarking improvement. I doubt many servers are really using that feature.
Something that bothered me about the Mindcraft studies that was partially explained in the earlier article posted here about saturating a T1/T3 on a single-processor Linux box, and still further explained in this article...
If NT is such hot stuff running a webserver, how come so many NT servers die horribly when they're slashdotted, yet slashdot (P2x2 256MB ram if I remember correctly) has enough processor time and bandwidth left over to customize the interface and most of the pages that it spits out? I have seen so many high-traffic NT sites bog down and sometimes just not respond when they get busy, yet most Linux/FreeBSD servers keep chugging right along.
I wonder if there's a way to benchmark that...
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
They didn't switch. They use Solaris for the backend (the database) and FreeBSD for the webserver.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I love the web - it is the great equalizer. Bad benchmarks like Mindcraft can be shot down in quick order. However there is one test that would have crushed NT in BOTH tests. It is simply this: Conduct the test over a 6 week period.
Having worked in an ALL NT house and now in an ALL UNIX house I can tell you that the NT/IIS server will crash NO LESS than 8 times in 6 weeks and require hours to fix/restart. That has been my experience at a company that had 80+ NT servers doing real life web application work.
I used to complain that LINUX/APACHE was no match for NT/IIS because the application platform from Microsoft is simply amazing. I've since seen something called PHP3 and that looks as good if not better than IIS. Does anyone have any experience with PHP3? Is it very powerful?
--Pete
This so-called "real world test" wasn't so real world after all:
The internet does not behave the same way a switched ethernet does: There is usually less than 10mbit between the client and the server (much less), and frequent packetloss. It is clear how this will impact the performace, there will be many more outstanding connections than on an ethernet for example.
I'd like to see some tests that take this into account.
Well, comparing technical specs including the OS running is only one part of the job. Who cares about such benchmarks at all when you can buy better (faster) hardware for the Linux box with the money you saved by not buying NT?
If there would be an OS that would outperform Linux by --- let's say --- 40% on the same hardware but would cost you $20,000, would you really consider buying it or just use Linux and spend the money for a faster processor, more RAM, better networking cards or even a second box?
HELLO !
.asp pages on Linux. I bet if you tried the benchmarks with this you'll get similiar bad scores for Linux.
This benchmark is truly stupid. The only good it does is point out that you can get whatever numbers you like if you select the appropriate parameters. (+ Maybe some verification that Linux doesn't handle 4 network cards...)
In this case the testers seems to know much about Linux and next to nothing about Windows/NT. In Mindcrafts case it was the opposite.
OK, maybe perl script are "the lowest common denominator" but why even make tests with these ? How many webserver with a large number of hits to dynamic content use perl on NT to serve the pages ? The reason you get bad perfomance on this isn't NT or IIS fault it's just the really bad implementation of perl on NT...
There is a company called chilisomething that claims to make a product to run
I was pissed of at Mindcrafts benchmark and I'm pissed of at this benchmark too. Please, improve Linux instead of trying to fight a mudslinging war with Microsoft.
This isn't a more "realistic" benchmark, it's just a diffrent kind of unrealistic one. Heavily biased due to (I suspect) the testers own opinions and what they know about performance tuning on NT and Linux.
How come they didn't use Service Pack 5????
They use the latest and greatest Linux version.
Yet they failed to use SP5 for NT?
SP5 has many performance enhacing features
for multi-cpu configurations.
"Closed-source != code that's always worse at everything than open-source"
I love free software adn I think this is a very good way to develop software, like ESR point out, but they are also great closed source software and very well written one (Quake anyone?). I think that RMS is true when he say that we must also point out the liberty given by free softwares. I use Linux because this is free (like in beer), this is free (like in speech), I love the Unix way of doing things. The fact that Linux is free like in beer is one of the most important for me at the time because i am a student and I don't have a lot of money but this is only for the time being and will change when i get a job. The fact that it is free (speech) is for me the most important fact.
I don't think that all piece of software can be open sourced but I want to have an open source competitor to each software that have a common use because it will force everybody to compete by doing better products if these free clones exists, and this will be better for everybody, even those that don't use free softwares.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
If one instance of a NT box staying up is proof of it's stability then one instance of an NT box crashing after a single day is proof of it's instability. But wait, both have happened! Maybe we have to use averages -- in which case NT will lose, every time.
And stability is hardly more important that uptime. When your server is down it's down, whether or not you're rebooting it yourself.
um this is off topic...but did he really say 'factor large PRIME numbers???'
Juln
A lot of software is multilingual, but a lot of it isn't.
Of course a lot MORE software is multilingual in Linux than any other OS I know of, but there's definitely room for improvement, and english is definitely an important skill. (How many program sources have comments in japanese!?)
If your NT is crashing and you haven't modified the kernel (how would you?) then it is necessarily caused by a bug in the kernel. How can you blaim a sys admin for using software that exposes bugs in the kernel!?!? Shouldn't you blame the kernel for bugs in the kernel!! If IIS crashes, that's a bug in IIS. If IIS crashes NT, that's a bug in NT. No two ways about it.
Seems to me like it takes more luck to avoid NT kernel bugs than Linux kernel bugs, because there are more in NT. I'm sure not many of these NT sys admins actually KNOW what causes the crashes that they're not having - their particular hardware/software setup just fails to expose the bugs that none of them know about.
It doesn't state if the NT system was
defragmented. It needs to be after a service
pack is installed to reduce I/O processing.
Clearly, NT WAS NOT TUNED.
Your job is to service those companies whose (now fired) IT permanently forced them into the MS solution.
If ASP is the only language you're capable of programming, though, you're probably not very good at ASP anyway.
When they fix the bugs it'll be impressive.
It is plainly visible that the c't tests were at least *closer* to a real-life situation. All of us also know that in real-life situations Linux is better than NT. We've replaced our NT/IIS with Linux/SAMBA/Apache and the performance increases have been visible. I'm not going to trust a report that says GeOS on C64 beats out a 64CPU Solaris uSparc, it's just common sense. c't is also considered (by our European friends) to be very trustworthy. ZDNet (which does PCWeek) is not. They make statements such as "Linus Torvalds could walk out at any time and take his kernel with him" without mentioning the GPL (or what it means) anywhere in the article. And who the hell is mindcraft?
Maybe the c't tests *were* poorly manufactured, but they *did* return the correct results. Benchmarks in general (in entirety!) are inaccurate and one-sided. The only way to test the performance of two different systems is to try them - most of us have, and we don't see NT breaking any records with speed.
Benchmarks are worthless in comparing OSes. EOT.
No, no. Not "that's funny," but "that's funny (tm)".
It's funny (no pun intended) that these claims of
NT's stability always begin with "That's funny."
Seems almost like an organized campaign.
I fucking hate it when i see a question that
interests me and the only replies to it, instead
of being answers, are useless bullshit like this.
Replies to a legitimate question that do NOTHING
to answer the question at all and don't even bring
up anything interesting should be marked down as
much as possible.
The G3 has only 1/16th of the memory, the Primergy had 2GB of memory and not 1GB as my memory told me when I was writing the lines, sorry.
This seems slightly embarrassing. *nix should be best not only on normal hardware, but on high performance hardware under extreme load. It really surprises me that a closed product like NT/IIS can really perform so much better. My guess is that if anyone *else* actually had a crack at it they would do much better...it just so happens that MS was the one with R+D $$.
I've heard that Linux performance penalties were due to a single-threaded IP stack (???), and also large-grained locks in the kernal. Most PHBs won't realize that while Mincraft's or C't's benchmarks represent a snapshot of Linux/NT performance at some point in time, it is only a matter of time before *nix outdoes NT simply because it is accelerating much faster. What is 50% slower today will be 25% faster a few days from now. This is not the case with NT. *nix is the ship to board. NT doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Besides, even if NT DOES perform X times better, with a FREE OS and web server one can AFFORD to buy X *nix boxes (with those 1000s of $$ saved).
I hope this didn't come off sounding critical (which I am not by a long shot). I think in no time the Linux kernel will be outperforming NT on tests like these...just a matter of time (somebody should also be including *BSD in these tests, really...I've heard it can handle load better). Anyway, this is just AISOMLB (As I Sit On My Lazy Butt) commentary.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Yep, that is why it is fun ;)
;)
Actually, he made worse than saying that, he wrote it
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Simply you can make a benchmark prove what you want if you choose the conditions carefully.
Don't give any credence to benchmarks, death to anyone who does.
The important thing is uptime:
At our office we have 12 NT servers
We had to write a reboot.exe for them.
Now I have a cron script on an SGI (which I might
move to my linux Workstation for pure joy) that
rsh's to the NT's every day at 6a.m. and reboots
them all. I got tired of calls in the early
morning and late night about those things being
hung up. (the kernal seems to bloat pretty quickly
under high loads) Now the only time I get bothered
is when they bluescreen. My NetBSD server and
my ORIGINS have been up pretty much since our
production started a year ago and the NT's get
reset once a day. That IMHO is telling of the
technology.
I think the CGI test with 3 sec delay is a pretty good approximation of slow connections and small bandwidth of some users.
Generating packet loss will probably not make so much of a difference, but it may be worth a try.
All in all this is about the most realistic web serving benchmark I've ever read.
Wow! I didn't realize that Mindcraft tested the box with *four* 100Mb/s network cards. Unless my math is wrong, it's equivalent to almost 9 (*nine*) T3 pipes! Now, I'm no expert on the subject but what kind of a web site serves static pages over 9 T3 lines???
Thanks to C't for some more meaningful benchmarks. Oh, and don't even get me started on the reliability issue...
There is one more thing I wanted to see texted. I know that CGI on NT sucks badly, probably a way for Microsoft to promote ASP. Now how about some perl vs ASP benchmarks or something to that effect? They do mention in the article that the two are fundamentally different which makes the comparison meaningless. Can somebody comment on the subject? What about ASP vs. PHP?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Don't forget that they didn't play this ridiculous 4 NIC game with 4 ethernet cards. That's where SP5 scores most. And then SP5 hadn't been released in German when the test was made.
The first time I tried to go the ms site and read thier insane benchmark I got a database query error. It was pretty funny. I wonder how many people had to reload that page and then read those great NT benchmarks.
c't is the most respected computer technology mag in central Europe. They know how to tune a NT box very well.
And they *definitely did defragment* NT before the test, as this is standard.
Do not forget this. Linux(kernel) and all other free software is about freedom, more than anything else. By being free, they will be just as fast, stable, cute and so on, as we make them be. NT might be fast, or might not be fast, but it's theirs. Linux, it's ours. And my computer, home or office, is not some quad Xeon 550 with gigs of ram. So I now what I'll stick with.
In a world without walls, who needs Windows? In a world without fences, who needs Gates?
ASP pages can't be ported to any other system that I know of.
Standard CGI on NT sucks; you need to go with ASP if you have to use NT/IIS.
Windows, 9x and NT, has problems with uptime - if you want uptime and real-world reliability, you need a mainframe or *nix system.
According to this study, NT sucks with any kind of delay in the line - real-world kinds of conditions. (Click on a ZD net story and wait 20-30 seconds to start reading it...)
Now, suppose you start writing an active-page site. You use Windows, because it is cheap and available. As soon as you make that decision, your boss should consider firing you. You simply can't grow the site into a mission-critical, 24x7 kind of site without re-writing the whole thing when you outgrow the NT box. (And check out the Economist link, where Groves says if you're not on the web in five years, you won't be in business!)
With that out of the way, I do have an observation that I believe is worth consideration.
When Mindcraft came out with their benchmarking tests, this place (as well as their mail server) was flooded with 'what a bogus test!' 'you MS whores!' and the venerable 'go f*ck yourselves!'
However, when these benchmarks come out, and say that Linux beat NT, they are automatically heralded as The Truth. Now, I really do like the fact that Linux has been 'vindicated', but what guarantees do we have that these tests were any less biased than the ones that said NT won?
I know a lot of you will think I'm a heretic, but we need to present an image of being clear-headed observers. The way not to do this is to automatically discount every benchmark that says NT is better while automatically accepting benchmarks that say Linux is better as God's Own Truth.
Just so I can be sure you guys understand, I'll reiterate:
- Linux rules
- Microsoft sucks
- A benchmark is not trustworthy merely because it agrees with your beliefs
RistorilNo, the 3 sec delay does not suitably model slow connections or low bandwidth. It represents time spent within the CGI program to do some calculation, most probably hitting an external data source or database. Connection and bandwidth issues might cause problems with the number of threads/processes blocked in the server, the performance of the TCP/IP stack in sub-optimal situations, and possibly a couple other areas. It would truly be interesting to see how resilient the systems are to typical connection problems, but that would take another test.
As far as I recall, Slashdot runs on a single computer with a connection that I am assuming is pretty saturated. Since mentioning a site in one of /.'s articles usually bogs down said site due to the number of people checking it out, I think /. is doing pretty good. What's the MS Support site run off? Something like 6 servers is what I heard. And I've had experiences with it refusing to give me a page as well.
It really pisses me off when people take technology for granted and would rather whine than take the time to think about what's going on.
As much as I hate to say it, I would have to think the second mindsoft test was the most appropriate. The first mindsoft test certainly was biased since there was no optimization of the Linux box done. The C't test was just as worthless (IMHO). It tested with '486s and higher PCs' and a 10 Base-T ethernet card. Who runs that as a web server? If we're talking about real production systems we really need to throw out the C't test.
The mindsoft tests obviously exploited the Linux SMP and the network stack. We've been hearing about those for weeks and there are apparently several people working on them. It doesn't negate the tests just because it works well on a 486 with a 10 base card. We need to stay a little more realistic than that.
NT is advertising they play the big server market. If Linux is to play that game, we've got to play it on the same field.
geisel
Oh, the BSD people and the Linux people (many of whom share common interests and goals, run the same OS's, etc. ) actually talking rationally without bashing each other.
;)
Someone better report this back to Gates and Goons immediately!
How about we set up two boxes, equivalent to slashdot's current setup up. One runs NT w/ IIS and the Other runs what Slashdot is currently running. Have them mirror each other and loadshare the traffic. Count how many it handles over a 6 month period. Count the number of reboots. Count the downtime for a software upgrade (hotfix vs. kernel patch). THAT would be a good "benchmark"
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
As I said in numerous posts from the beginning of this discussion the results are because of the f... ethernet stripping.
Which is stupid anyway because if someone needs above 100M/s the way to go is using a gigabit ether.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I disagree with the idea that nobody would use RAID 0. It's quite common in many shops that need high reliability, because you don't use software RAID or internal RAID controller cards in such systems. You use external RAID boxes. If you have a number of these, and want a large volume, you use disk striping to turn the external boxes into a huge disk.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
If NT 4.0 with IIS is the "hot setup" why is it that Microsoft can only keep Hotmail up and running by quietly running FreeBSD with Apache?
Just a thought...
How about developing a benchmark for dynamic content output, say, querying a RDBMS and producing results from that. Use Oracle on both systems, and whatever mechanism for querying Oracle data seems most efficient for either platform. That would be a much fairer test of dynamic content, and i suspect Linux would still come out on top.
---
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
A UNIX box kicking 12 NT boxes to nirvana every morning is a pretty much entertaining notion.
Nice!
And when you can post your name AC perhaps we will listen to your opinion.
However, a short explanation anyways. Rob is a programmer. Not a system administrator. He is also
beta happy and will try out new code on the site to see how it stands up. As a matter of fact he freely admits he is not a system administrator and does things that shouldn't be done. Perhaps he should try NT - pointy clicky pointy clicky pointy crashy crashy crashy all blue.
-Girc
ASP's are slow. See the benchmarks done by the mod_perl people on perl.apache.org. NT is notorious for slow dynamic content. Unless you write everything as ultra-optimised ISAPI dll's you'll suffer the same fate - as I've experienced to my great embarassment - gladly I've vowed to never take *that* route again... :)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I hope this benchmark will help you improve FreeBSD (and other BSD as well).
BTW I have a question:
do FreeBSD CLI tools only accept BSDish style options or are they more like the Gnu tools, with a lot of extensions and new options?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
DON'T TRUST A BENCHMARK YOU HAVENT FAKED FOR YOURSELF!!!
they probably better use NT. As soon as ms doesn't find anything else to buy, they will surely start to buy porn sites...
My $.02....
..... and sure both sides will look at each other and reach different opinions on the validity of the corresponding results.
We can all see from this c't benchmark that there is a second side to the NT IIS vS Linux Apache debate
The main thing as main people have said, is 'Hey, look at these limitations in the scalibility in Linux (most of which we know) and do something about it' .
No-one responds with ' They've won, they have the better product' , and this is a constructive attitude to move forward on.
M$ is not going to vanish into the ether, and yes IIS from my own experience performs well as an intranet/internet server. However we do not have excessive load, and although my own gut reaction (interest) would be to use a L & A combo, I'm yet to be in a real world scenario which would dictate this as an alternative solution.
Regardless on which view point you look at the recent bench marks, it does show the strength of the open source model. And sure if M$ are releasing a revamped personal web server as part of Win 2000, it better be damn good, as even with the usual SP's , Apache & Co. will be developing at a far greater rate.
Let the sun shine, both are going to be around for a long time, those in the know we choose the most appropiate solution.
....or preferably go for RAID1
...since it was reported in Linux Today on Monday!
...because everybody knows that Linux advocates :( Whereas, MS and MS schills
or anyone who tries to make Linux look good vs NT
makes stuff like this up. It's a frequent tactic
of Linux advocates.
are always truthful.
Sarcastically yours.
Ummm...
www.zdnet.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2 on Solaris
Just trying to clear that up.
Go here if you want to check it out
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?ho st=www.zdnet.com
It should be pretty obvious that the Mi5ft "testing" was pre-determined to result in good marketing slogans, while the C't testing was done to find out which truly works better.
Ultimately, we do have to make sure we evaluate the testing on its merits, not on its results. If we think the C't tests prove that "Linux Rulez!" we're just as guilty of fanaticism as anyone else who claims "Foo Rulez!" But if we take the test results (Mi5ft, C't, or whatever) and say "Hmmm...Linux does pretty good in most areas, but let's see if we can fix the remaining issues," then we're using the testing profitably.
I'd like to see how Linux would fare on the same mindcraft test with 1 Gigabit Ethernet card instead of 4 100baseTX cards. It seems there's some sort of contention going on for the cards or the IP stack that's slowing things down when more than one interface is active.
I'd love to see some PHP (or eperl) tests done against the same functionality under ASP/vbscript.
I suspect that PHP/Apache/Linux would blow the doors off of VB/ASP/IIS/NT, however there's an even more telling test that I think would show NT to be the leader in slow technology:
Take your benchmark box. Connect it to 1024 clients, and have them all download active content (CGI, ASP, whatever) at a byte rate of 100 bytes per second. Watch NT fall over at about 500 concurent processes....
IIRC, the "486 and higher" PCs were client machines making the http requests to the test server. An http request from a 486 taxes a server just as much as a PIII's request.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Sure, moving every function (web server, etc) into the kernel like NT does speeds things up, but it also makes your kernel more prone to CRASHING and gives more opportunities to 31337 H4X0RZ for cracking superuser access on your system. I wanna see tests that slam the machines hard and continuous over a period of several MONTHS or more. Let's see who's left standing then? Of course, tests like this only highlight the fact that OSes are already obsoleted by the next version by the time they're released. How can anyone expect to see stability under these conditions?
- pretty much everybody uses one of the configurations c't tested
- pretty much nobody uses or will use mindcraft's setup (raid 0, 400 mbit net connection, 4 way xeon server to exclusively serve static pages)
- like probably no other magazine in europe, c't is renowned for independence, objectiveness, competence
- what is known about mindcraft is that they did another test some time ago, seemingly with a setup advantageous for NT (against Novell Netware)
and:
- the mindcraft test was payed by microsoft, mindcraft conducted the test in a microsoft lab, mindcraft used microsoft email accounts
- the c't test was payed by Heise verlag. And by the way: Heise runs Solaris.
If you are really objective now, what will your conclusion look like?
I still dont understand. Why wont anyone run the tests on a bsd server(FreeBSD/OpenBSD). In my opinion, they would beat both winnt and linux. The bsd kernel is just much faster.
It's not the box that is the problem. It's the connection.
Hey all,
Whilst people are always interested in big figures - we can shift 100mb in 1 second - the fact is that these tests between NT and Linux should have taken into account the real-life aspect from the start.
How many people are truly interested in server performance other than sysadmins ? No one, that's who. The original test by Mindcraft was simply a "The Microsoft Way is best" statement. The subsequent tests were more of the same, *but* were not there purely to impress Joe Public.
If the test had been ment seriously Mindcraft should have gone for the real-life aspect rather than large figures. Now that this test has been completed it proves what anyone with two brain cells to rub together already knew.
Please don't get me wrong... I live winding up the Linux Guru at work with tasks along the lines of "Well I had a program in Windows that did xyz. Where can I get that on Linux ?".
Once again, Microsoft finally falls once the truth has come out.
The big problem with the benchmark is the number of worker threads allocated under IIS. Reference [7] on the c't page (a Microsoft IIS tuning page for large sites) states:
"Monitor the Processor Queue Depth object under System in Windows NT Performance Monitor to see if you have too many threads active."
However, c't only used 20 threads per processor. It's pretty simple to see that if you have a single processor machine with twenty worker threads, and each one is blocked for 3 seconds per request, your pages per second will be no greater than: 20 / 3 = 6.67 pages/sec. I'm sure that there is a document out there where Microsoft does recommend sticking with 20 worker threads, but that's because typically there isn't a 3 second delay in processing, and more than 20 threads would just cause needless context switches. In this case, more than 20 threads makes a lot of sense.
Trevor
That's funny. My NT 4.0 box has been up for about 6 months under a relatively heavy load (10K visitors a day on a P2 266 with 96 meg RAM).
I love hearing about instability claims. That just shows me how many job openings there will be as soon as these moronic sysadmins get canned.
Broken pages and no response from the server are results from a lack of bandwidth. Uh, no. That's from the web server hiccupping. It's real simple. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. /. can't stand the heat.
I realize that this is a bit off-topic, but what do you people keep doing that makes NT crash?
I've been running NT (SP4) on my computer here at school for the last 4 months. Not once has it crashed, blue-screened, or frozen. I'm running a wide variety of software, including WinAmp, Starcraft, Netscape, Visual C++, JDK, Office, and even (gasp) IE5, along with the Peer Web server (similar to IIS; comes with NT workstation).
Everyone keeps complaining aobut how unstable and unreliable NT is, but I've yet to see any evidence of this. What are you running on it when it crashes?
-ElJefe
I work for Lucent Technologies and we've been using another crappy dynamic HTML software, Informix's Web-Blade. It basically is like PHP but has many more bugs and is a bit more cryptic to write. PHP blows anything and everything out of the water that i've tried thusfar, works perfectly, and works quickly. We're already in the process of re-doing out entire internal site using PHP3. I've written two small web applications which use it and they were developed in about half the time it would've taken in Perl or Web-Blade. I highly suggest anyone who is looking for an easy way to generate HTML (or even images or pdf files, as stated already) to jump over to their homepage and check it out!
--
Hook up both boxes (NT and Linux) to a T1/T3/OC3/etc.. and put up links on slashdot, and where ever and record the results, make it a REAL web server, have the same pages on each machine one optimized with php the other with whatever. Maybe this would be more of a real world test?
They have used SuSE 6.1.
SuSE offers German versions. In fact, the German version is the primary version of SuSE Linux (The German version has always released first and the international version(s) followed some weeks later.) See http://www.suse.de/ or http://www.suse.com/.
The text doesn't tell us at all wich versions of NT or Linux they have used, but since the machine came preinstalled from Siemens (a German company) and was delivered to a German magazine, I'm pretty sure they have used both the German version of NT and SuSE Linux.
I'm not one to promote paranoia, but there were just way too many AC's posting replies to this one using an identical writing style and repeating the same "go microsoft" comments. Count them and look at the wording and punctuation styles.
And I think it's funny that you're basing your whole decision on one site. Why don't you try testing it out yourself if you are really interested?
ALG
Ok, so there is no _good_ web benchmark in existence, but that doesn't really excuse c't from doing a cgi comparison. This is a test designed to make NT look bad. The process creation overhead for NT is 3x higher than Unix. This is a known issue, and it's why multithreaded solutions like ASP exist in the first place. As a result, this c't benchmark is meaningless. A better test would be to specify the requirements of a dynamic site and then use the appropriate technology to implement it on each platform. So I guess that would be mod_perl on apache and vbscript ASPs on IIS. This would be a _much_ cooler comparison. I'm not sure who'd win, but I'd like to see a fair comparison of this type conducted.
--Shoeboy.
That puppy's running so much RAM that the board is bending from the weight.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm finding that this whole NT vs Linux war is starting to annoy the crap out of me!
I hear (and even advocate) pro linux and anti M$ stuff on one side, and then ( mostly thanks to a M$ Certified mate of mine) hear pro M$ and anti linux stuff on the other side. And to be honest, I don't much care.
I'm beginning to think that this whole "We have to beat NT" thing is becoming a dangerious obsession. Linux ( and, indeed the opensource comminuty ) has different priorities to Windows NT, and Micro$oft.
Now, while it's certainly not a bad thing to keep an eye on what's happening "on the other side", hell, as was mentioned in a previous thread (sorry to whoever mentioned it, I can't remember your name) the competition drives the advancement to a degree. But I fear that we're becommign so obsessed with beating Micro$oft, that we're losing perspective of everything else.
I remember an article by the name of "The Two Towers" here on slashdot some months ago (again, apologies to the author, as i can't remember your name to quote it), and I think I should reiterate it here. We really need to be careful that in our attempts to "Destroy the beast" (Micro$oft in this case), we don't inadvertently become it ourselves!
Let's just try not to lose track of where we're headed, and why we're here in an attempt to prove that our products are better than somebody elses.
-Matt Sk