Hmm... I'm reading the PCMag test and I see that they are using a kernel 2.0.35 and a Stronghold Webserver...
How good was the 2.0.* series at Multiprocessing? and, Isn't Stronghold slower than Apache due to the security issues?
And why do they only test (as it seems to me) static webpages... aren't dynamic ones a better way of showing what the server/OS is good for? (I think I saw a note on apacheweek ( http://www.apacheweek.com) that Apache in fact did perform better than other servers w. dynamic pages than static ones... (I might be wrong here))
I also see much people saying that Apache is slow (I know it wasn't made for performance) Therefore I'd like to see a test comparing Apache under different OSes... Linux, *BSD, Solaris, NT (when the NT version is stable) and so on...
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...
I'm reading the PCMag test and I see that they are using a kernel 2.0.35 and a Stronghold Webserver...
How good was the 2.0.* series at Multiprocessing?
and, Isn't Stronghold slower than Apache due to the security issues?
And why do they only test (as it seems to me) static webpages... aren't dynamic ones a better way of showing what the server/OS is good for?
(I think I saw a note on apacheweek ( http://www.apacheweek.com) that Apache in fact did perform better than other servers w. dynamic pages than static ones... (I might be wrong here))
I also see much people saying that Apache is slow (I know it wasn't made for performance) Therefore I'd like to see a test comparing Apache under different OSes... Linux, *BSD, Solaris, NT (when the NT version is stable) and so on...
/Droid
This is why my next computer will not have an Intel processor.... (at least not one with this ID stuff....)
Instead it'll be an AMD K7 (or an Alpha... if I can afford it...)
Go AMD!
/Droid