>-- stuff deleted
>
> > You don't. Do the same tests on Linux running Apache and you might get
> > better results. If not, just run Linux and Apache and whatever anyway.
> > You do have a choice.
Andu, I agree, but other requirements are making the NT/Windows2000
decision....it was only a question of a MC - database or a
ASP/ODBC/source choice for this particular setup. The second half of
this project will most likely be a Linux/PHP solution on a separate
machine.
>I got the same (twice, for for what i seen) better speed results in using
>Linux/Apache/PHP/MC/MySQL than in using WinNT4/IIS4/PHP/MC/MSSQL or
>WinNT4/IIS4/PHP/MC/MySQL or WinNT4/Apache/PHP/MC/MySQL.
>
>In others words, Linux/Apache/PHP/MC/MySQL will be 400% faster than
>WinNT4/IIS4/ASP/MC/MSSQL
I'm a little confused why you would go through MC to get to MSSQL or
any other source...just go directly from ASP/PHP to the SQL source?
>
>Second : If your MacOS or Linux or LinuxPPC based Internet Server is cleanly
>configured, it will never go down...., where you will get a "blue screen" on
>your Win32 based Internet Server, with an average of two times a month (with
>just the message "memory out of range... and so on).
Again, agreed, as my OS/X server has been running flawlessy (except
for the time when I accidently unplugged it) for 9 months now. I'm
not thrilled to be on the MS based system, but this project requires
it.
Of course, the client end is all MC and I'm more than happy with the
integration with MC servers, MC based CGI's as well as the ASP side
of the world.
-ml
Mark J. Luetzelschwab [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Graduate Research Assistant (v) (512) 232 6034
Instructional Technology (f) (512) 232 2322
Reading and Language Arts:
http://www.texasreading.org
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
