*BSD News Article 78445


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news1.erols.com!news
From: Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.infosystems.www.misc
Subject: Re: Unix too slow for a Web server?
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:03:57 +0000
Organization: Erol's Internet Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <323F123D.6D55@www.play-hookey.com>
References: <323ED0BD.222CA97F@pobox.com>
Reply-To: kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kenjb05.play-hookey.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:129653 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:27400 comp.infosystems.www.misc:43699

Subhas Roy wrote:
> 
> A ZDnet article says in the web page
> http://www.zdnet.com/pccomp/features/fea1096/sub4.html#jump2
> that Windows NT-based servers run much faster (as much as 13
> times) when client counts are low.
> 
> Is that possible? Anybody wants to comment on the
> article's claim?

I will refrain from uttering the plain-language content of my real
opinion of such a claim. Let's just leave it at this: I'm running Apache
1.1.1 on a FreeBSD 2.1R platform, and even when my site is being
accessed top reports the CPU capacity is largely idle. The server
machine is currently using a 486DX-50. I plan to upgrade to an AMD
5x86DX-133, which overclocks very nicely to 160 MHz (too bad it won't do
200, but what do you want? Egg in your beer?), but there seems little
need to hurry; the box outspeeds the phone line with my present
connection, and I can't afford an ISDN link or better until I go
commercial (which will be yet awhile).

Since we are running Win 3.1, WFW3.11, Win95 (shudder), NT 3.51, and NT4
beta at work, as well as a FreeBSD box, I can say this much from direct
observation and experience: the web server we tried to run on WinNT in
no way outperformed Apache on FreeBSD, and the NT platform itself is not
as stable.

I wonder if whoever made that comparison was carefully running httpd
under inetd, rather than standalone? That way, inetd would have to take
time to load httpd into memory, which at low usage would slow things
down. Running Apache in standalone mode leaves from 5 to 10 copies of
httpd idling in RAM, waiting for a call, so there's no delay in
responding. Further, as calls come in additional idle copies are loaded,
to the max specified (default 150). Again, minimum delay.

In fact, with Apache running this way, a page and four image files will
typically be handled concurrently by different httpd clones in RAM, so
everything is sent at the same time. Our WinNT server had to handle such
requests in sequence. Not exactly what I'd call a faster way.
-- 
Ken

Are you interested in   |
byte-sized education    |   http://www.play-hookey.com
over the Internet?      |