From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA45406 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA41911 for linux-list; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:25:33 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA97947 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:25:31 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (ghenriksen@acm.org) Received: from hopper.acs.ryerson.ca (hopper.acs.ryerson.ca [141.117.101.8]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id PAA03550 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:25:30 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (ghenriksen@acm.org) Received: from s46-64.resnet.ryerson.ca (s46-64.resnet.ryerson.ca [141.117.46.64]) by hopper.acs.ryerson.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0/SP2) with SMTP id SAA311198 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:30:41 -0400 From: ghenriksen@acm.org (Gerald Henriksen) To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (SGI/Linux mailing list) Subject: Re: NTools ENewsFlash -- Report: NT 3.5x Faster Than Linux Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:24:33 GMT Message-ID: <371613c9.533557@hopper.acs.ryerson.ca> References: <199904141820.LAA81406@oz.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <199904141820.LAA81406@oz.engr.sgi.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >[I'm forwarding a message that bounced. Just thought some people > may be interested. To add to what Eric wrote, another thing that > I find strange is that they are comparing NT 3.5 rather than the > latest NT 4.x to Linux. I also believe some of the results > are missing crucial details, like how the two very different > web servers were configured (e.g. standalone vs from inetd, > ssi turned on etc.) who paid for the report, full disclosures... > -- Ariel] A couple of clarifications (more info can be found by checking out Slashdot, which carried the story Tuesday and at this point has over 700 comments) 1) they used NT Server 4 2) Microsoft paid for the testing (says so on the page that reports the results) 3) they did compile a Linux kernel as they had to update Red Hat 5.2 to the 2.2.2 kernel, and they also mention the 3 changes they made to the kernel config. They didn't however do much to optimize Linux 4) someone even dug up the message they posted asking for help, but they ignored at leat the response that told them to forget wasting 4 CPUs on a web server. Note that they also goofed in their plea for help, claiming that they were using Apache 2.* which doesn't exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Henriksen gerald@rose.com 4th Year Computer Science ghenriksen@acm.org Ryerson Polytechnic University ghenriks@scs.ryerson.ca From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: ghenriksen@acm.org (Gerald Henriksen) Subject: Re: NTools ENewsFlash -- Report: NT 3.5x Faster Than Linux Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:24:33 GMT Message-ID: <371613c9.533557@hopper.acs.ryerson.ca> References: <199904141820.LAA81406@oz.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <199904141820.LAA81406@oz.engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com To: SGI/Linux mailing list Message-ID: <19990414222433.XB2TKn7RpyCHZKjAAn3BqMrc3OZJHd0GSeac6MF0a9I@z> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >[I'm forwarding a message that bounced. Just thought some people > may be interested. To add to what Eric wrote, another thing that > I find strange is that they are comparing NT 3.5 rather than the > latest NT 4.x to Linux. I also believe some of the results > are missing crucial details, like how the two very different > web servers were configured (e.g. standalone vs from inetd, > ssi turned on etc.) who paid for the report, full disclosures... > -- Ariel] A couple of clarifications (more info can be found by checking out Slashdot, which carried the story Tuesday and at this point has over 700 comments) 1) they used NT Server 4 2) Microsoft paid for the testing (says so on the page that reports the results) 3) they did compile a Linux kernel as they had to update Red Hat 5.2 to the 2.2.2 kernel, and they also mention the 3 changes they made to the kernel config. They didn't however do much to optimize Linux 4) someone even dug up the message they posted asking for help, but they ignored at leat the response that told them to forget wasting 4 CPUs on a web server. Note that they also goofed in their plea for help, claiming that they were using Apache 2.* which doesn't exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Henriksen gerald@rose.com 4th Year Computer Science ghenriksen@acm.org Ryerson Polytechnic University ghenriks@scs.ryerson.ca