httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <ako...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject Re: Apache performance on Windows
Date Mon, 08 Dec 1997 02:26:04 GMT
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:

> How big is the file?  If you aren't getting at very least 500 kbyte/sec,
> then either the server or client sucks or your network does have traffic.
> Dorm networks often have high traffic from doom.  <g>

The hub I use has indicator lights that I have never seen rise above maybe
20% network usage. However, it should be noted for the record that today's
network game of choice, as observed here in my dorm, seems to be Myth. In
the last few weeks, it appears to have almost completely driven Marathon:
Infinity from the cluster computers here.

That being said...

> Crossover cable between the two.  Poof, no more other traffic.

Good idea. I don't have one, but I did think to unplug the cable that
connects my hub to the wall socket, and run the tests again. Here are the

In case it's meaningful to anyone, here's a more complete run-down on the
relevant hardware and software:

* Dell OptiPlex GXM 5166
* 32 MB RAM
* 2 gig Seagate ST3243N hard drive
* Adaptec 2490 SCSI controller
* 3Com 3c509 Ethernet card (built-in to the Dell motherboard)
* Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3
* -or- Windows 95 (I forget which version)
* -or- Red Hat Linux 5.0

* Power Computing PowerBase 180
* 40 MB RAM
* 2 gig IBM DORS-32160 hard drive
* Farallon EtherMac PCI network card
* MacOS 8.0
* Netscape Navigator 4.04

* 3Com OfficeConnect 8/TPC (3c16701)

The file transferred was 3.14 MB, MPEG audio layer 3 compressed
(which is when I noticed that lack of the mp3 extension).

Each test was performed twice, and timed to the nearest second. Both
results are shown:

Windows 95 (Apache 1.3b4-dev): 0:17/0:18
Windows NT (Apache 1.3b4-dev): 0:25/0:26
Linux (Apache 1.2.4): 0:17/0:17
Linux (Apache 1.3b4-dev): 0:17/0:17
Linux (Apache 1.3b4-dev)*: 0:17/0:17

* All the other tests were done with the file on a FAT16 partition,
  mounted onto Linux with the vfat fs driver. For this test, I tried
  copying it to an ext2 fs to see if that would make any difference.

As you can see, Linux faired much better in this test than in the last
round. I retried one of the tests with the hub plugged in again, and got
17 seconds again, so I don't know what happened earlier (a large burst of
network traffic maybe).

At any rate, it seems clear that for this sort of transaction (large file,
no other traffic on the web server, fast connection), Linux does beat
Windows NT. However, Windows 95 comes very close to Linux' speed. Which
surprised me, to say the least.

It should also be noted that Linux appears very consistent. I'm begining
to suspect that this may be due in fact to the limitations of my Mac. Out
of curiosity, I tried using Lynx on one of the Solaris machines I have
access to on campus to access the file via Linux; I got a time of under
five seconds. Although it should be noted that when I tried the same a few
hours ago, it was more like twenty-five seconds, it may explain the
persistence of 17 seconds, even though one would suspect 1.3 of being
faster than 1.2, because of its use of mmap() and writev().

Draw your own conclusions. Maybe we need a press release: "The Apache
Group Finds Windows 95 Fastest Web Server Platform" (ugh)

-- Alexei Kosut <> <>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <> *

View raw message