Return to BSD News archive
Message-ID: <327FB2E2.5BF64653@kalifornia.com> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:34:26 -0800 From: David Ford <david@kalifornia.com> Organization: Pacific Tradewinds X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.24 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.infosystems.www.misc Subject: Re: Unix too slow for a Web server? References: <323ED0BD.222CA97F@pobox.com> <552p74$23e@polo.demon.co.uk> <554fun$r8v@clarknet.clark.net> <55io8t$jca@uriah.heep.sax.de> <55npp6$c5r@news1.iamerica.net> <55o16e$g6a@xmission.xmission.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.230.56.5 Lines: 23 Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.texoma.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!night.primate.wisc.edu!news.he.net!viper.inow.com!ns1.aplatform.com!pagesat.net!mothra.westworld.com!205.230.56.5 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:140681 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:30808 comp.infosystems.www.misc:45500 > >: > The reason Win NT -- and, IMHO a better choice, OS/2 -- systems might be > >: > faster web servers than Unix systems, in some circumstances, is their use > >: > of lightweight threads. > In the experience of my ex-employer colleagues using Linux in place of > WinNT on PC hardware, Linux is much faster & more stable. > As for Web servers, those that pre-fork server children & have plenty > of memory to run on are certainly no slower on a mip for mip > equivalent Unix box. I'll offer proof of that. My main web server is a Pentium 150 with 128 megs of RAM on a 2+4gig scsi system. I run linux exclusively. This server supports 290 virtual domains currently, and is capable of 1024 (arbitrary figure we decided on when we patched up the kernel.<grin>) This machine is capable of 2+ million hits per day, with a traffic flow of over 40gigs/day. The apache httpd uses the first 64m chunk at full load, and I have a spare 64m for the rest of the system and batched scripts. I have yet to see an NT system perform in this manner. David p.s. I can login at the console and do things at the same time, unlike NT :)