Oh for crying out loud. The FreeBSD people are still quoting problems with Linux dating back to 1994. Linux' network code has been fixed for two, almost three years now.
First, I don't care whether Samba beats NT on fileserving. I'm not a big Samba user and won't claim to comment on it, but I do know something about Apache:
First, I noticed that Apache falls over when the number of requests reaches exactly half of the MaxSpareServers setting, and that they had a hard maximum servers compiled in of 500. Obviously somebody knew something about Apache; you have to pay attention to set that value.
I would like to see the results of the survey with different MaxSpareServers value. Also, Apache does not spool up terribly fast, even with the new faster preforker. With a StartServers of 10, it will take it a couple minutes to reach operating temperature. The Apache team mentions in the documentation that this is part of why Apache is so much better than the benchmarks make it seem. The test could be over by the time it's getting fired up.
I don't think the switching overhead was the big hurt here. That system is MORE than fast enough to handle a few hundred simultaneous connections.
Another interesting thing would be for them to take this exact same disk drive and plug it into a much smaller box - say a dual Pentium 133, or something. I wonder if maybe it wouldn't generate nearly identical results, thereby demonstrating that configuration is in fact the issue.
And, of course, Microsoft paid for the study. It looks like the lesson of the Halloween memo may have been overlooked at MS and they are going to try to use FUD after all. That would be a colossally stupid thing for Microsoft to do and would make me very happy:}
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for crying out loud. The FreeBSD people are still quoting problems with Linux dating back to 1994. Linux' network code has been fixed for two, almost three years now.
First, I don't care whether Samba beats NT on fileserving. I'm not a big Samba user and won't claim to comment on it, but I do know something about Apache:
:}
First, I noticed that Apache falls over when the number of requests reaches exactly half of the MaxSpareServers setting, and that they had a hard maximum servers compiled in of 500. Obviously somebody knew something about Apache; you have to pay attention to set that value.
I would like to see the results of the survey with different MaxSpareServers value. Also, Apache does not spool up terribly fast, even with the new faster preforker. With a StartServers of 10, it will take it a couple minutes to reach operating temperature. The Apache team mentions in the documentation that this is part of why Apache is so much better than the benchmarks make it seem. The test could be over by the time it's getting fired up.
I don't think the switching overhead was the big hurt here. That system is MORE than fast enough to handle a few hundred simultaneous connections.
Another interesting thing would be for them to take this exact same disk drive and plug it into a much smaller box - say a dual Pentium 133, or something. I wonder if maybe it wouldn't generate nearly identical results, thereby demonstrating that configuration is in fact the issue.
And, of course, Microsoft paid for the study. It looks like the lesson of the Halloween memo may have been overlooked at MS and they are going to try to use FUD after all. That would be a colossally stupid thing for Microsoft to do and would make me very happy