Again it would be interesting to note that the network appliance cache products, most notably inktomi and cacheflow have not participated again in this annual benchmark exercise. Their non participation in these events simply mean that they are more hype than substance, and that people considering using it should seriously re-think their directions.
In my mind if these companies refuse to participate in events that will publicise just how efficient their products are with what's available for free or for a much lower price, then they have no business pushing their hype into the market. Unfortunately a lot of MIS managers and CTOs are fooled by the hype, and waste a lot of money in the process. And i quote: "We would also like to point out that if you are considering purchasing caching appliance products from companies such as Cisco, Network Appliance, Infolibria, Cacheflow, Inktomi, Dell, IBM, Compaq, 3COM, F5, or HP, that NONE of these companies wanted you to be able to judge the performance and capabilities of their products in this open testing environment. Please understand that the Polygraph benchmark is an open testing platform that allows you as a customer to test a caching product yourself and make sure that any vendors marketing claims meet the real performance capabilities you desire. If you want to know how product A compares with Product B but don't have the time to work with the Polygraph benchmark, The Measurement Factory also holds private tests for customers where you can choose the products that you wish to compare and get a non-biased report from an independent third party." On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, fooler wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:20 AM > Subject: [plug] Which OS is the Fastest -- FreeBSD Follow-Up > > > > Freebsd people gave patches, tips, recompiled the > > kernel, and change/edit system files but still... > > it came out on the midlle of the pack. even on > > the bottom when you push it hard as seen on the > > graph. > > this is an old issue.. if you want to compare freebsd vs linux, then take a > look at fourth cache-off > (http://www.measurement-factory.com/results/public/cacheoff/N04/report.by-al > ph.html ) majority of vendors are still using freebsd because of its > technical superiority on higher loads... try to compare imimic and pyramid > which uses the same proxy software which is imimic's datareactor but uses > different platform. imimic is using linux with 1100 request per second while > pyramid is using freebsd with 1276 request per second with a lower hardware > than the former. vendors that are using imimic's datareactor proxy software > that can be run both linux and freebsd still choose freebsd as their based > OS because they know the technical difference between linux on higher loads. > freebsd is a rock solid if you only know how to configure it properly. > > fooler. > > > > _ > Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph > To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
