httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: BSDi vs. NT
Date Mon, 19 Aug 1996 04:10:36 GMT
> Randy Terbush says:
> > What can you do with IIS that you can't with Apache?
> > 
> > What could the IIS server be doing in this example that would make it
> > appear so much slower?
> > 
> > Are you suggesting that Apache on an NT machine would outperform Apache 
> > on BSDI?
> 
> My point exactly.

I won't take this bait despite the fact that I have serious doubts.

I would however appreciate an answer to my previous two questions.

What features does IIS offer that Apache doesn't?


> The comparison isn't exactly fair. For example, NT doesn't exactly
> support "#!" in scripts. So there's a little hacking one has to do
> to figure out just what kind of script has to be run. One way is to
> use the file extension assoc table to do this, and cache the result.
> 
> [Warning: This is a SWAG]
> 
> It could be that MS isn't doing this and doing the assoc lookup each
> time - which'd explain why the CGI performance is slower.
> 
> [Retract warning]
> 
> Nonetheless, yes, you'd have to have an Apache on NT to compare an Apache
> on BSDi. Clever marketing on BSDi's part, and catches the unwary completely.
> Like my boss, who was just about to ditch Sun, Solaris, NT until I did a
> little analysis. Qualitatively and quantitatively, the Web pages we serve
> to the USAF and DLA are faster using NT and Netscape's Enterprise server
> than Solaris and the Enterprise server.

I find BSDI's comparison to be of much greater value than the daily
deception offered by MS.  Comparing NT and Solaris does not fairly 
represent BSDI.









Mime
View raw message