Richard Burmeister wrote:
>
> I believe MS switched to their own servers quite some time ago. It was
> reported in the press at the time. And the lesson we might learn from this
> is that a lot of the negative stuff you hear about MS is unfounded. Because
> MS used to house their web site on Sun servers, you got the idea that NT is
> incapable of handling the load. The truth is, NT is handling the load at
> one of the busiest web sites in the world. So maybe it's not all that bad.
[...]
As someone who's been doing specifically this type of thing for about 3
years now (HA Web Servers), with both UNIX and NT setups, I can tell you
that it's not a matter of "if", but "how many". From personal experience,
you need about 2.5 NT servers to handle the same load that 1 midrange (2
CPU) Sun server can handle (running Netscape or iPlanet server). Running
Apache is a different story (it's slower compared to NS). All large sites
are using some sort of load balancing, which makes the specs of each
specific machine irrelevant.
MS gains no advantage by speeding things up either, because PHBs will
almost always buy an MS product, simply out of reflex.
--
Brian Mathis
Direct Edge
http://www.directedge.com
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
