httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
Subject Re: ZD do it again!
Date Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:29:29 GMT
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:

> The ZD rag "PC Magazine" has a review and benchmarks of something called "NCSA
> Apache 1.41". Naturally, it is the slowest (apart from the Mac offering) of
> all servers tested.
> 
> I don't suppose moaning at them will get us anywhere, but someone might care
> to.

partly online at http://www.pcmag.com/iu/features/1515/server/server_o.htm

Wasn't in the store here when I checked.  I have no problem with reviewers
saying you have to have half a clue to make Apache work.  I have no
problem with them saying it does not include all sorts of gee-whiz gizmos.
However, I am concerned about the results they are getting performance
wise.  While there is certainly a hit due to Apache not being
multithreaded, in my tests against Zeus with the right server setup Apache
kept up with Zeus pretty well, and Zeus is probably on par or better than 
MS and NS's servers.  Largely because of the process per client model of
Apache, setting the server up correctly is more important than with a
threaded server because if it is done incorrectly it will be forking far
too often.  

I am also not sure that they did an adequate analysis of the average
response time; I almost wonder if they are running into slow start
algorithms sometime which may be more restrictive on Solaris than NT; this
normally has minimal effect on the LAN except in silly benchmarks, and
_greatly_ helps WAN performance by avoiding flooding the link.

The actual numbers are not on the web, and they may have more information
validating their methods in the article, but it looks quite bogus to me.


Mime
View raw message