From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri Apr 24 22:20:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA08974 for freebsd-hardware-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:20:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from portal.net.au (galley.portal.net.au [202.12.71.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08951 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:20:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@portal.net.au) Received: (from matt@localhost) by portal.net.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01718 for freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:50:00 +0930 (CST) From: Matt Baker Message-Id: <199804250520.OAA01718@portal.net.au> Subject: Re: *** Real Action Item: SPECweb To: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:49:59 +0930 (CST) In-Reply-To: <354158BF.A4F1E284@ibm.net> from "Don Wilde" at Apr 24, 98 08:30:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On the earlier question of Apache vs. Zeus, I'm still inclined to stick > with Apache. Again my reasoning is that we are out to promote freeware, > and Apache is a known name even to the Wall Street Journal. I'm going to > go back and read some of the earlier SPEC results and see what else is > out there for other single-processor machines, but I'll bet using > ROM/B-DRAM disks will multiply our throughput up to the point where > we're back to net performance as _the_ issue. Has anyone done a comparison test between using Apache by itself, and a Apache server with a Squid frontend? Squid can run in accelarator mode for web servers, and certainly seems quicker than Apache at serving pages. Matt. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message