Well, I think he meant that like the *kernel*. A lot of code has hacks specifically built for gcc 2.5.2 (the KERNEL!!!!) which don't compile with 2.6.
Well, 2.4.0-test9 won't compile at least. Anyhow, point said...bad choice RH... Other than that...installing 2.5.2 works fine. I like the new updated packages:)
Ok, I've read about every post and reply in this topic. So let's review:
1) All M$ enthusiasts bash linux
2) All Linux enthusiasts bash NT (but with accurate data)
ok, some facts:
-IIS 5.0 does outperform Apache w/Linux 2.2 kernel on static content ONLY
-1:10 ratio is obsurd, I'd be surprised if it was 1:2
-Kernel 2.4.0-test* does speed performance. This is due to optimizations in process cloning probably.
-Who uses only static content anyhow? not even microsoft does that. PHP? ASP? nope, not static. CGI? Nope, apache wins again.
-What is Dell defining as a hit? a page load? or a user session? 1 mil page loads isn't too bad, but a session where 10 or 20 pages are accessed by a single user is significant.
-Personal Experience: Running an Athlon 700 w/256MB of RAM, 2 10k RPM 18GB HDs, linux 2.4.0-test7 and Apache 1.3.12 + OpenSSL + PHP 4.0.2 -- averaging about 100k page loads per day and it uses only about 10% of my CPU, and still have 150MB of RAM free. This mean that 90% of my CPU is idle. Hmm, seems to me that 1M page loads wouldn't kill me. But remember I'm using PHP, so my content is dynamic and will take longer than a static page load. Funny....
-If you're only interested in static page loads, then use khttpd. geez, a kernel based web server, so-what if apache isn't the way to go for you...that doesn't mean that LINUX isn't!
-VERY IMPORTANT!!!! QUAKE 3 PERFORMANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING OF STATIC WEB CONTENT. JACKASS. who actually hired that guy anyhow?
Dunno, just got pissed...had to reply...I'm sure someone will blow this off like I did everyone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think he meant that like the *kernel*. A lot of code has hacks specifically built for gcc 2.5.2 (the KERNEL!!!!) which don't compile with 2.6. :)
Well, 2.4.0-test9 won't compile at least. Anyhow, point said...bad choice RH... Other than that...installing 2.5.2 works fine. I like the new updated packages
Ok, I've read about every post and reply in this topic. So let's review:
1) All M$ enthusiasts bash linux
2) All Linux enthusiasts bash NT (but with accurate data)
ok, some facts:
-IIS 5.0 does outperform Apache w/Linux 2.2 kernel on static content ONLY
-1:10 ratio is obsurd, I'd be surprised if it was 1:2
-Kernel 2.4.0-test* does speed performance. This is due to optimizations in process cloning probably.
-Who uses only static content anyhow? not even microsoft does that. PHP? ASP? nope, not static. CGI? Nope, apache wins again.
-What is Dell defining as a hit? a page load? or a user session? 1 mil page loads isn't too bad, but a session where 10 or 20 pages are accessed by a single user is significant.
-Personal Experience: Running an Athlon 700 w/256MB of RAM, 2 10k RPM 18GB HDs, linux 2.4.0-test7 and Apache 1.3.12 + OpenSSL + PHP 4.0.2 -- averaging about 100k page loads per day and it uses only about 10% of my CPU, and still have 150MB of RAM free. This mean that 90% of my CPU is idle. Hmm, seems to me that 1M page loads wouldn't kill me. But remember I'm using PHP, so my content is dynamic and will take longer than a static page load. Funny....
-If you're only interested in static page loads, then use khttpd. geez, a kernel based web server, so-what if apache isn't the way to go for you...that doesn't mean that LINUX isn't!
-VERY IMPORTANT!!!! QUAKE 3 PERFORMANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING OF STATIC WEB CONTENT. JACKASS. who actually hired that guy anyhow?
Dunno, just got pissed...had to reply...I'm sure someone will blow this off like I did everyone else's.