Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Hat/Apache Slower Than Windows Server 2003?

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the who-doesn't-love-some-delicious-fud dept.

Microsoft 628

phantomfive writes "In a recent test by a company called Veritest, Windows 2003 web server performs up to 300% higher throughput than Red Hat Linux running with Apache. Veritest used webbench to do there testing. Since the test was commisioned by Microsoft, is this just more FUD from a company with a long history? Or are the results valid this time? The study can be found here."

cancel ×

628 comments

Just like the samba benchmark (5, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460471)

Looking at the first page of the benchmark report, I see that they're using the exact same setup as in their highly contested samba benchmark, with a specific ancient version of Red Hat running on a specific hardware setup that version is known to have performance problems on. They could have at least tried a different server last time, or a modern version of Linux. Under fairer circumstances, who knows, IIS might have still won, but this rigged benchmark has nothing to offer us in deciding which server is faster.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (3, Insightful)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460540)

Yeah...yeah...

I just wish, just ONCE that somebody would do a fair evaluation, without an agenda to forward. But I guess that'll never happen. We all have bias...but surely we could at least attempt to get above that?

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (3, Insightful)

Pinefresh (866806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460632)

Well, if you really want to know, you could probably do one. It couldn't be too hard to put a simple one togeather, and it would solve the question for you.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (5, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460546)

...a specific ancient version of Red Hat

This report was written in April 2003, according to the first page. They used the most recent version of RedHat available to them.

This report may be two years out of date, but I can't see any signs of bias in its production.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460587)

"...I can't see any signs of bias in its production"

Are you saying you have selective vision, or do you not believe that the test was flawed? The newer kernels, properly tuned and run on good hw, are blazingly faster than 2+ year old kernels.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (4, Funny)

eric76 (679787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460553)

Using the same logic, my old '64 International Harvester pickup could be shown to be faster than a Formula 1 race car.

I have the ideal road for the test in mind.

Now all I need is for someone to loan me a Formula 1 race car for the test.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (3, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460556)

wrong, it does tell us which is faster - linux. if Windows was faster, why would they need to benchmark against a crippled system?

sure there's a chance I'm wrong, but for me weighing the CHANCE of better performance from Windows against the CERTAINTY that they have lied about their product (or been completely incompetant) is a no-brainer.

and that's not considering costs (remember guys, using linux always requires an old, slow mainframe to be factored into the TOC!)

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460624)

remember guys, using linux always requires an old, slow mainframe to be factored into the TOC!
Do you even know what a mainframe is? Apparently not, so shut the fuck up.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460658)

>Do you even know what a mainframe is? Apparently not, so shut the fuck up.

Do you even know the MS-funded FUD TOC report I was referenceing as a joke? Apparently not, so shut the fuck up.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (4, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460558)

Under fairer circumstances, who knows, IIS might have still won, but this rigged benchmark has nothing to offer us in deciding which server is faster.

I've reached the point where I completely ignore all the studies and benchmarks like this, from both sides. It is, quite simply, far too easy to set the constraints and metrics up so as to make sure you come out ahead. What's worse, it has become absolutely standard practice to do so. Studies have become completely useless because you can guarantee that they've been cooked one way or another.

Jedidiah.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (5, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460576)

"we applied no additional patches and made no additional modifications to the Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1 distribution used for these tests"

I remember installing CentOS-3, based on RHEL3, on a server and having terribly slow disk performance with my raid adaptor. Running "yum update" to get the current patches yielded about a 10x speedup. Yet the Windows server gets a dozen or so undocumented registry tweaks.

In the SSL comparison, they're using the fastest (though slightly less secure) choice of encryption algorithms in IIS and the slowest in Apache. They're comparing RC4+MD5 to 3DES+SHA1.

And they decided to include ISAPI in the benchmarks without including the apache equivalent. All they test in apache is CGI. So again it's IIS's fastest option versus Apache's slowest option.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460653)

They did standard registry tweaks to Windows, and did similar tweaks for Apache and TUX. They even did ridiculous things like put the 6000 static URLs into the httpd.conf so that it would preload them all! IIS was still 168% faster.

dom

Three hundred percent? (2, Insightful)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460472)

10%? 15%? Those are numbers I'd believe. But THREE HUNDRED PERCENT? I like Microsoft, and I like when somebody defends them. But this is just bull.

Re:Three hundred percent? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460519)

I am not even sure you can get 300 percent difference racing a 486 PC and a 1Gz PC in any test.

Re:Three hundred percent? (1)

egregious (16118) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460610)

I am not even sure you can get 300 percent difference racing a 486 PC and a 1Gz PC in any test.

Um, let's say you have a 200MHz 486... 300% better is 600Mhz. Shock! I found one!

Re:Three hundred percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460639)

you have no idea what you are talking about. Please read his post and actually think next time.

Re:Three hundred percent? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460651)


It's not cool to reply as an AC to an obvious diss on your own post.
Faggot.

Re:Three hundred percent? (1)

shobadobs (264600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460654)

Well, no. Mathematically speaking, 800 Mhz is 300% better than 200 Mhz. You see,

200 Mhz is 0% better than 200 Mhz.
250 Mhz is 25% better than 200 Mhz.
400 Mhz is 100% better than 200 Mhz.
600 Mhz is 200% better than 200 Mhz.
800 Mhz is 300% better than 200 Mhz.

You take the percentage and then add to find how much better it is. So 600 is 300% of 200, hence (600 + 200) is 300% better than 200.

Re:Three hundred percent? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460641)


Moron.

Re:Three hundred percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460583)

I'll buy the 300% figure. I'd also wager there're tests I could run where Linux+Apache would outperform Windows+IIS by 300%. Optimize the test to show one system is better, optimize the system you want to cast in a favorable light to perform well against that test, ...

This paper is fucking bogus though. I mean the interesting graph would show time-to-request-completion on the vertical axis (taken at the 95th percentile) and number of requests made per second on the horizontal axis. That would mean something. This is just ludicrous and lacking in any real value.

Re:Three hundred percent? (0, Redundant)

ninboy (882101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460598)

you like microsoft ? um is this slashdot ?

Re:Three hundred percent? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460606)

The 300% faster figure was from a static file test. Since IIS 6 can serve static content from kernel mode, it can go much faster than Apache. TUX can also serve content from kernel mode, so IIS was only 160% faster than it with 8 CPUs. TUX didn't scale (4 CPUs was faster than 8), as IIS was only 12% faster with 1 CPU.

Keep in mind this report is from 2 years ago.

dom

Easy (5, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460475)

Out of the box Apache doesn't do too well. But take some time tuning it, and your OS's TCP/IP stack, and you can easily outperform even Zeus. Read some of the tuning guides.

Re:Easy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460487)

bulllshit.

Re:Easy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460507)

Does IIS have to be tweaked like this?

Re:Easy (4, Informative)

zeromemory (742402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460644)

Furthermore, IIS performs better than Apache under light to moderate loads. Once you start moving to heavy loads, IIS begins to choke and eventually just can't handle any more clients. Apache just happily continues running.

However, this might be more an effect of the underlying operating system than the actual server program. I haven't seen a comparison of Win32 Apache versus IIS, so I don't know.

Questions (1)

atfrase (879806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460477)

Questions: 1) Is there any reason to believe the results from this company would be valid "this time", if they never were before? 2) Can we please refrain from common basic grammar mistakes on the front page? 'There' is not a posessive...

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460532)

Can we please refrain from common basic grammar mistakes on the front page

Yeah everyone, better listen up to the grammar nazi. Before posting your message on slashdot, be sure to run it through a spell and grammar checker to be sure to catch any typeohs or goofupz. Woodint wansta pyss offs teh grammah nazees!

Seriously, could the grammar nazis find an english lit website to go to and spend their time anal probing each others casual messages there instead of here? Kinda of sick of it.

"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (4, Insightful)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460480)

Let's see. A test commissioned by Microsoft says IIS is faster than Apache. The link for more information goes to microsoft.com. Is this really "news"? Seems more like a thinly-disguised press release...

Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (1)

green pizza (159161) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460489)

Seems more like a thinly-disguised press release...

s/press release/troll

Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (1)

Begossi (652163) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460494)

Slow day on slashdot. Pretty much any crap gets greenlighted for the first page.

Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460595)

That's not a slow day, that's a _normal_ day.

Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (5, Insightful)

august sun (799030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460554)

Can we please for once be mature about it and look at their methodology objectively? I'll even grant that because it was commisioned by MS a little extra scrutiny is certainly due; but summarily discarding the study simply for this reason is the intellectual equivalent of sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "lalalalalala" at the top of our lungs.

Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (1)

HomeworkJunkie (877015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460655)

Maybe people are tired of hearing the same old FUD. I dunno. It seems like we are arguing with trolls that are working in a similar way to the anti-science and anti-evolution brigade: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Imm ortalFumbles.html/ [pandora.be]

(if the above URL has a space in the word Immortal, don't blame me :) It looks fine in the comment, but the preview puts a space in. Anyone know why?)

They say/do something that goads people into flaming them and then they turn around and say that you're abusive and cannot argue reasonably.

They won't listen to reasoned argument because the're set in their ways and blinkered to other possible arguments or they have something to gain from putting down your side of an argument, whether it be tecnological (as in web server performance) or scientific (as in evolution).

Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460664)

I stick my penis in your mom's mouth and she screams "lalalalalala" and I really like it.

What gives, son?

fp kekelar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460481)

kekelar muthafuckas. windows rules. linux sucks my pink cock.

*ahem* (2, Informative)

SynapseLapse (644398) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460485)

Veritest used webbench to do their testing.

Re:*ahem* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460561)

No, "Veritest used webbench to do that there testing."

Re:*ahem* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460567)

Yes, informative. I love it. This is english class folks, letS all wastez our mods pointes modding up grammar corrections.

Re:*ahem* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460630)

If this is an english class, it's in grade two.

By the way you're a goddamn idiot

How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460491)

AKA a nazi fanatic loser.

1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.

2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.

3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.

4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.

5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.

6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?

7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.

8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts,
and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)

9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.

10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.

11. You cannot admit that linux sucks when it comes for gaming/home entertainment or education.

12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.

13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.

14. Nothing will get past that shit that fills your head, you will not admit to any facts.

15. You can't admit that naming of linux components, packages, and others are weird and fits profiles of troubled teenagers. gentoo, lgx, rpm ....

16. You feel angered because you were left out by microsoft's Media technologies, they support Mac, Sun sparc, but not linux.

17. You feel inferior deep inside but unable to admit it, you don't have a database as easy and powerful as Access.

18. You cannot tell that not a single office package outside Microsoft's is worth looking at or bothering with.

19. You don't know that your CD recorder software sucks.

20. You don't have DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW support in your pathetic OS.

21. While the rest of the world moves on, you're stuck in a stone age technology that needs third party software to boot into GUI.

22. You act out of prejudice, you kill file domains and users of specific news readers while you ignore the bullshit that your fellow linux losers post.

23. You don't know commercial support in Linux is almost non existent.

24. You miss the fact that companies are leaving linux because of the chaos, and the cheap linux losers who are unwilling to pay and support hard work, Corel, gaming companies,...etc.

25. You are unaware that linux has no terminal services (there is a lame one that no one uses), and commercial support for it is not happening.

26. You are unaware that setting up servers on Windows takes couple of minutes while on linux, good luck playing with configuration scripts.

27. You cannot admit that support for USB on linux is laughable at best.

28. You think that Linux is better because slashdot told you so.

29. You spend countless hours flaming people because they post their opinions about your oh so cool linux and your attitude, instead of researching things for yourself and understanding fact in order not to look this stupid.

30. You think that anyone who uses linux has a clue.

31. You think that linux cannot crash.

32. You think that everyone is interested in your conspiracy theories about Microsoft (or should i say M$ in order for you, teenagers to understand?), and how they destroyed linux, ...etc.

33. You keep ignoring the fact that thousands of linux servers get hacked every year, but it takes one Windows server hacked to get you and your fellow linux idiots to dance and celebrate.

MOD PARENT UP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460604)

HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460659)

This guy is jackass and I'm not going to waste mod points on him but a lot of stuff he says is true. As soon as I see M$, Microsucks, Microsnot, Microshaft, etc., I quit reading. It just makes you look like an ignorant twelve year-old. Just my opinion.

Ahem... from the Article (5, Informative)

Evro (18923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460495)

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Linux
Competitive File Server Performance
Comparison


Test report prepared under contract from Microsoft

Executive summary
Microsoft commissioned VeriTest, a
division of Lionbridge Technologies,
Inc., to conduct a series of tests
comparing the File serving
performance of the following server
operating system configurations
running on a variety of server
hardware and processor
configurations:


At least they're up-front about it these days.

Other Veritest-Microsoft fun:

http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ [veritest.com]
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /analyses/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/veritest.asp x [gotdotnet.com] - .NET versus Java

In short, this is a company paid by Microsoft to make reports/whitepapers that make Microsoft look good. Nothing wrong with that as long as everyone's aware

Re:Ahem... from the Article (2, Insightful)

team99parody (880782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460596)

At least they're up-front about it these days.

I think they realized that the CXOs and other execs who make the big decisions never read the fine print anyway; and such disclaimers will never make the headline or a large-font pull-quote in any such marketing literature, so there's no harm in being up-front about it.

Even fake grass-roots efforts [slashdot.org] (astroturfing) can be done openly these days.

Oh, and to get on the Team99-bloggers-good side, I just wanted to say that Longhorn is so stunningly awesomely good that Microsoft won't have to resort to this kind of silly FUD once longhorn is released.

Hmmm... (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460497)

"Since the test was commisioned by Microsoft, is this just more FUD from a company with a long history?" Did you expect anything less from our global propaganda machine?

Exactly what did the test CGI with? (2, Insightful)

bloodbob (584601) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460498)

Notice the total lack of the CGI script?

I run both at work (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460500)

And the results are interesting. The Gentoo server doesn't perform nearly as fast as the Windows Server for most basic serving tasks. But software like Exchange Server is so badly written that it's much slower than postfix.

It's sad. If the same people writing 2k3 were writing products like Exchange, we wouldn't have a need for the Linux server.

Re:I run both at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460573)

I'm sorry, but how do you compare postfix against exchange? one is a MTA, and the other is a fully featured collab setup.. shared calendars on postfix? public folders on postfix? I'm not trying to be a MS fanboy here.. but at least lets not stoop to their levels and come up with biased comparisons..

Re:I run both at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460582)

Most Exchange customers only use it for e-mail. Group collab is NOT widely implemented. That being said, it's a far comparison.

Re:I run both at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460652)

No, no its not. But done the fanboi glasses for a second and you will see it isn't.

Re:I run both at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460656)

But software like Exchange Server is so badly written that it's much slower than postfix.

I'm sorry, did you just compare Exchange server to postfix? LOL.

IIS is always faster. (5, Funny)

Bug-Y2K (126658) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460501)

Faster to get infected.
Faster to get rooted.
Faster to get used as a warez server.

Nothing new here.

Re:IIS is always faster. (2, Funny)

vcv (526771) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460531)

I assume you've never used IIS 6.0 which has been out for 2 years. Very very secure, easily arguable moreso than apache.

But why would you believe that? I mean it's not like it's easy to find out..

Re:IIS is always faster. (1)

stewwy (687854) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460547)

I agree that the first two points are a negative for M$
but surely the last is a positive point?
at least M$ is getting their software to their marketplace

Not just faster, lower cost of 0wnersh1p too. (2, Interesting)

team99parody (880782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460572)

And remember, that the TC0 (0 for 0wnersh1p) [immunitysec.com] is lower for Windows as well (""Immunity's findings clearly show that the best platform for your targets to be running is Microsoft Windows, allowing YOU unparalleled value for THEIR dollar."). For anyone who missed it, /. [slashdot.org] had a lot of great discussion on that one from people who couldn't detect a troll.

Fair testing... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460505)

Reminds me of this editorial on the G5's testing by Veritest. http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/ [haxial.net]

Swings and roundabouts (5, Funny)

ricky-road-flats (770129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460512)

So does that make SMS on Windows faster than morse code on Linux?

Re:Swings and roundabouts (1)

stirlingneg (832272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460647)

No, but MS will be funding a second study with morse code on W2K3 and SMS on linux.

One question... (2, Funny)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460513)

I wonder if Bill Gates actually believes his own bullshit...

Re:One question... (2, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460549)

Of course not, but that's not the point. Typically the guys who make the money decisions will read the headlines, and glaze over the rest, probably missing details like this study was paid for by Microsoft. Ever have to hand in a project proposal or such? I've done many, rarely does anything other than the Executive Summary get read. The rest is just there to make the document look good. Microsoft has a very big marketing department. They know this kind of stuff. Do you really think Microsoft would pay for these "studies" if they didn't show a positive return on investment?

Re:One question... (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460559)

That's entirely true. I'm sure it has been quite successful for them in the past. However, sometimes you have to wonder just how much the people on top begin to believe their own marketing machine. Studies like this only lead to long term credibility loss, which Microsoft definitely doesn't need more of right now.

Not surprising (2, Interesting)

hoka (880785) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460514)

If they were running heavily restricted SELinux on RedHat it wouldn't be surprising to witness a massive slowdown on certain applications, and will likely be infinitely more secure than a Windows box probably could ever be. Beyond that Apache can be very slow out of the box, on my hardened gentoo test system (please withhold funroll loops jokes) Apache2 with hardened PHP + MySQL I would be lucky to handle 2 requests a second happily, it was amazingly slow. I've yet to fully tune it but some even basic tuning was able to improve speeds dramatically. It wouldn't surprise me if similar techniques were used by this "benchmark".

Why did they bother? (2, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460517)

What possibly possessed them to publish these results. No one in their right mind is going to believe 300% is an accurate figure under fair testing conditions.

Re:Why did they bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460611)

Sadly, the world is chock FULL of blithering IDIOTS who DO believe things like the 300% and who, despite their complete lack of technical skills, also have the power to make decisions about what server OS to buy, etc.

Windows 2003? Just wait to see LongHorn (1)

team99parody (880782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460518)

And as a loyal Team99 hopeful, I must point out that Longhorn will be zillions of times faster than Debian Potato and Windows 2003 and windows 98 combined!

PS: Darnut, are these Veritest guys going to get a better team99 bonus [slashdot.org] than me?

RH and Apache Versions (1)

affinity (118397) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460522)

Did anyone else notice the versions of RH they were using? So does this mean that Win2k3 is equiv to RH AS2.1 and IIS6 is equiv to Apache 1.3.23.

again? (1)

everettpf3 (880595) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460523)

how many times are we going to hear about how cheaper/faster/better windows is and from how many different companies? no, i'm not implying they're right, and even if they were, is it news everytime it's claimed?

Their v. There (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460527)

"Veritest used webbench to do there testing."

Disgusting.

It might just be me that is a nitpicky person, but there is a difference between "there," "their," and "they're." This is not only simple grammar, it's basic grammar.

Re:Their v. There (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460612)

Oh, I agree completely. You're certainly not a nitpicky person. You're simply a person who can spell at at least - what is it, maybe 4th grade level? - surrounded by people who cannot (and whose depth of thought is often on par with their spelling).

Let's be reasonable (2, Insightful)

PaulQuinn (171592) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460530)

Why couldn't IIS be faster than Apache?
Is Apache/Linux the "end-all-be-all, there is nothing that can be better so let's stop trying" type of quality?
Are the guys who work at Microsoft a bunch of idiots that anyone can out-program?

I'm sure IIS is better at some things, maybe more things, maybe less.

Who cares! I don't think stats like these are why anyone chooses Apache/Linux over IIS/Windows.

Re:Let's be reasonable (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460548)

"Are the guys who work at Microsoft a bunch of idiots that anyone can out-program?"

Yes.

Re:Let's be reasonable (3, Insightful)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460571)

It very well could be. However, let's try 1) an indepedent test, paid for by neither competitor, and 2) the most recent version of IIS against the most recent version of Apache, and 3) the most recent version of Windows against the most recent version of Linux. I can guarantee a win in any test so long as I am allowed to dictate all of the conditions. I wonder how many combinations they tried before they found one that IIS6 could beat?

Paid Witnesses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460535)

There's a reason why it's not legal in most of the civilized world for witnesses to be paid to testistify.

I've never been a Microsoft fan but if they would pay me the kind of money this company received, I'd probably say whatever they fucking wanted me to say.

Heavy Sigh (1)

big_groo (237634) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460538)

Hey slashtwats...when the 'study' is found at MIT or Berkely, or Waterloo or that would be unbiased (or has some semblance of credibility for that matter)...wake me up, m'kay?

Re:Heavy Sigh (1)

big_groo (237634) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460551)

Where's the goddamn foot icon!!

Re:Heavy Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460646)

in yo ass

Apache is a bloated hog (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460542)

This is why really high traffic websites run simple httpds like thttpd [acme.com] which is very small and very efficent, unlike Apache.

MOD ABUSE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460625)

The parent is not a troll, thttpd is actually a faster httpd than Apache while running Linux.

Please fix, mods.

Recent test? (1)

jay-be-em (664602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460543)

In TFA: Published: May 5, 2004

Who wants to bet this is a year old dupe?

Re:Recent test? (1)

jay-be-em (664602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460577)

Not only this, but the .pdf is dated april 2003.

I, For one... (0)

TurboBling (685466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460555)

... do not welcome our new Micro$oft overlords.

And now, ladies and gentlemen... (2, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460560)

I'll test the amazing Linux versus the ultra-slow windows NT.

Config:
Linux: Latest Redhat running on Opteron 4GHz
Windows: Windows 3.1 running on a Pentium 100.

And the winner is...?[/sarcasm]

Re:And now, ladies and gentlemen... (1)

TurboBling (685466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460574)

Can windows 3.1 even be considered a network capable OS? I seem to remember it being deploreable.

Re:And now, ladies and gentlemen... (1)

ninboy (882101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460643)

windows 3.1 did not have a tcp/ip stack , you needed a 3rd party one, but im sure it would suck donkey nuts if it did

To para(dy)-phrase (4, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460564)

Windows 2003 server running on skynet is 300% Faster than Ye-oldie redhat -12 edition from 1723 running on an abacus.
This reliable Expensive test paid for by Microsoft to show how much better windows 2003 server is(the payment came with a clause stating such).

News? (1)

tempest303 (259600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460568)

Right at the top of the PDF it says "April 2003". How is this benchmark "news"? (And nevermind the fact that as always, as an MS sponsered benchmark, the MS machine was probably hand-tuned, and RH + Apache was probably run in a stock configuration.)

While sheer performance isn't really what sells RHEL boxes, I'd be very interested to see a proper test of Win2k3 vs RHEL 4 on identical hardware...

This is new? (5, Informative)

louarnkoz (805588) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460581)

The web page says it was published May 5, 2004, i.e. a year ago. The report itself is dated from April 2003. The test was done using RH advanced server 2 and Windows 2003 RC2, i.e. a pre-release version. Since then, both RH and Microsoft have published new releases, for example the service pack 1 of Windows 2003. Why is this posted now?

MORE ads? (1)

SamMichaels (213605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460585)

Not only do we get MS ads at the top claiming the same stuff as the article...now we get articles promoting it.

If it helps keep slashdot online...fine...but this better be a rare thing.

Yester-year's News Today! (4, Funny)

Percy_Blakeney (542178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460589)

Not only does the linked page say it was published in mid-2004, but the study itself is from early 2003. How does this qualify as a 'recent' study? Just because someone read it for the first time today doesn't mean it was created today...

Sheesh -- with such outdated news, I almost felt like I was reading the newspaper or something.

Not just performance... (1)

KrisCowboy (776288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460599)

...but what about reliability? Is a Windows Server reliable enough? Can I sleep peacefully if my server is running Windows? Can it give me uptime of 364/24? I bet Microsoft won't be answering these questions.

"there testing" (1)

cshay (79326) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460602)

their

Damn... (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460609)

Google should switch then.

Re:Damn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460663)

You're stupid. Google doesn't run Apache.

What about Norton? (2, Insightful)

qualico (731143) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460615)

Wonder what that benchmark would be if you installed the FULL Norton package on it?

This bull reminds me of those advertisements for weight loss.

BEFORE................AFTER
Stick stomach out....Suck stomach in
White......................Tanned
No cosmetics..........New facial
Front shot...............Side shot
Grubby clothes........New fashions

How about a fairer test, MS people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12460626)

You MS dorks set up your super-Solitaire computer, and let me and some Linux-heads set up the linux computer, and submit them for competition.

2k3 has the same kind of optimisations as Tux w/s (2, Interesting)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460636)


2003 has kernel-level webserver acceleration and offloads a lot of the processing
there, the same was as the Tux webserver (also RedHat?) beat the shit out of
Apache. It's essentially zero-copy-networking with zero-copy-webserving too.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx /power/en/ps1q01_redhat?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz [dell.com]

There may be some truth in it, therefore. Aren't there some patches these days to
hook Apache directly into the Linux kernel too, since Tux is obselete? I doubt
they ship with RedHat's stock system though even if they exist.

I remember back in the day... (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 9 years ago | (#12460662)

I remember back in the day a 486 with enough ram could fill a T1 pipe with apache, while the windows guy would still be trying to coax the installer to run(being well below the minimum requirements). Now it's never that simply, static HTML is a dinosaur that doesn't exist, and how many pages do you visit regularly that are static html? There are some out there, but which are regular(daily/weekly) visits? Yeah, there are the few exceptions, but 99% of what you see needs a CPU and Ram. Windows could have a chance here, but I'll stick with my PHP/Apache/MySQL with eAccelerator.

It's a different world and benchmarks like this just don't give a good picture, not yet anyways.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...