From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Apr 15 2:18: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dns.ie-online.it (dns.ie-online.it [194.133.148.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8656F14BF8 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:18:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sriva@alice.it) Received: from dns.ie-interna.it (host1.ie-online.it [194.133.148.10]) by dns.ie-online.it (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04993; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:15:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sriva@alice.it) Received: from stefano (stefano.ie-interna.it [192.168.0.33]) by dns.ie-interna.it (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA15370; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:15:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sriva@alice.it) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990415111539.009ebbf0@relay.alice.it> X-Sender: riva@relay.alice.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:15:39 +0200 To: Michael Slater From: Stefano Riva Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction (Unix vs NT) Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <21EF26FF9AD8D01180E9BA3BC10000000EA13A@george1.iexpress.ne t.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 09.02 15/04/99 +0800, you wrote: >argument that NT Rules and Linux and FreeBSD cant do the job! Can >anybody point me to similiar benchmarks that dispute the letter below ? Just my personal experience. In my company we have both NT fans and Unix fans, so be sure that neither of us tweaked configurations to "win the prize". 1) NT Server 4 SP4 w/ latest IIS on a dual PII/400 (HP NetServer LH3), 256 MB RAM, U2W hardware RAID 1 subsystem, Intel Server network adapter w/ i960 on board, blah blah blah 2) FreeBSD 2.2.7 w/ Apache 1.3.3 on a single PII/300 (HP NetServer E50), 128 MB RAM, old UW subsystem, simple Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 network adapter, blah blah blah Both servers are loaded w/ about 12.000.000 hits per month (actually the BSD load is slightly higher, let's say 13.000.000). The BSD box handles 12 different sites w/ 12 different IPs and runs many other services like, for example, sendmail, although they aren't heavily loaded. The NT box handles 1 site being absolutely "clean", but it queries an SQL DB on another fast machine, which isn't overloaded, linked at 100 Mbps FD. Results: the BSD box isn't heavily loaded at all (I'm sure even an old P5/133 would do the job w/o problems); I mean, almost always more than 90% idle in top. The NT box works well, but it needs all the machine's power to run smoothly: we had to switch to this LH3 because when we was using an LHPro dual PPro/200 there were moments the server being clearly overloaded (both CPUs 100% in task manager, sloooow surfing of the site). Ah, stability. With SP4, NT crashes "only" about one time per month (previously it used to crash about one time per week). I must admit: it's decent. Anyway, I NEVER saw the BSD box crashing. The current record in our company is of another 2.2.7 box heavily loaded with half a dozen important and demanding services (much more loaded than the BSD web server): 110 days of uptime. Of course, 110 days ago it didn't crashed... I simply had to switch it off for minutes because I was working on its UPS. :-) --- Stefano Riva Software Engineer - Systems Administrator Informazioni Editoriali I.E. Srl Phone +39-027528400, Fax +39-027528451 Email sriva@alice.it To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message