When you examine hard costs alone, you are correct. I realize Mac is not for everyone, but for me, a relative newcomer to the development world, has enabled me to get a relatively sophisticated infrastructure up and running in no time with a minimum of technical knowledge. This allowed me to start generating revenue almost immediately -- far in excess of any hardware savings I would have realized otherwise. And although I'm sure the performance differences may exist as you say, for me they still lie very much in the theoretical realm, as I feel I have only scratched the surface in terms of Witango's capability.
Chris > I think the apache argument is a coke/pepsi ford/chevy mac/pc argument. > They both perform better than neccessary and it is an academic choice. > I can accept the fact that you are wrong. ;-) > > As far as the differences in performance across platforms with Witango > v5: It is true that v5 is a vast improvement in all areas, but there is > a marked performance benefit with windows as the server platform over > the mac, when CPUs and networks are relatively similar. Maybe Phil > should chime in here. I spent many hours doing as much real world > benchmarking as I could. > > Understand, my goal was not to convince anyone that windows was better, > but the opposite. I am a mac enthusiast, and wanted the mac to at least > be equal, but it wasn't. I am sure it will get there. > > Plus the cost is a huge factor. How long do you think the life of the > server is? If I buy an XServe, I would want it in use for about 3 > years. But technology advances to fast. Let's say I buy 2 XServes a 3K > each (cheap), and two witango licenses for 1500ea. That is $9K. You may > say only buy one, but I don't think that is a real solution. You must > have redundancy in real world deployment, and the only way is with two > servers. Now I can have the same setup on Windows 2000 Server for for > about 5.5K, which includes rack mount servers, win2k licenses and the > Witango licenses. > > If we assume that Witango performs the same on both platforms, both > setups serve the same amount of requests reliably. > > One year passes by, our business has grown, and our servers have many > times where they hover at 40 or so concurrent users each. Time to > upgrade. On the XServe side, you still have a large investment in > hardware, so you buy a third XServe, and another Witango license, and > shell out $4500. Problem solved now hovers at about 20 concurrent users > at peak. On the windows system, the hardware investment is almost > nothing. So I buy a new motherboard and processor for each for about > $800 total. Doubling performance. I also hover at 20 now. > > I have done this 3 times. The reason I can lower my concurrent > connections without adding a server is that the new hardware seriously > outperforms the old, and the connections are opened and released much > quicker. Witango loves more processor speed. It is not a compiled > language, and must read through and interpret all those meta tags on > the fly. Obviously, you must also keep your database screaming so that > Witango never has to wait on a query. > > IMHO, I don't want to have a large investment in hardware that is > outdated in a year. My business has been growing at a good rate every > year, and the windows setup has worked well for me. I am finally now at > the point where I need to add more servers. > > Robert. > > On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 09:34 PM, Chris Millet wrote: > >> Maybe we're talking about different versions of Mac OS X Server. >> >> I'm using Jaguar and it handles multihoming and multiple SSL >> certificates >> quite nicely. I am somewhat of a novice at both and I found the >> process to >> be simple and straight forward. As for restarting the server, I simply >> make >> all my changes at one time, requiring only a single restart. >> >> The only real hassle I have run into on a regular basis is setting up >> custom >> logs. However, it seems there would be a way to write a script to make >> changes to the conf file for me, but then again, I am still relatively >> new >> to this. >> >> As far as performance, I relate to your Ferrari/Lamborghini analogy, >> but for >> Witango and not just Apache. W5 seems so much more powerful than T2K, I >> don't know that I could even tell the difference between platform >> versions, >> especially in the real world. >> >> This discussion does make me curious to know about any production >> sites that >> are pushing the envelope with Witango in terms of the kind of traffic >> that >> we are talking about. I would love to know about these sites, and if >> possible, know what kind of real-world numbers Witango is handling. >> This >> would seem to help in overcoming objections from clients not familiar >> with >> the platform. >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >>> The apple gui is a great start but leaves a lot behind. Because it >>> only >>> handles the the basics in the gui, you still have to hit the text >>> editor. And the apache issue of restarting the whole webserver to >>> update changes is always an issue, and the most irratating. Also, when >>> you have to deal with multihoming and multiple secure certificates >>> from >>> different vendors, you will find IIS completely at home with this >>> level >>> of complexity, and you will have to delve deep with the text editor, >>> and archaic ssl command line utilities on apache. I am a programmer, >>> and proficient in most languages, and am no novice to the apache >>> syntax, or the command utilities. But my time is valuable to me, so I >>> chose IIS. If the security issue was not a part of the equation, and >>> anyone put them side by side in daily use of complex web setups, I am >>> sure at 4 out 5 dentist would agree. >>> >>> Robert. >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Chris Millet wrote: >>> >>>> While it is true that IIS does have an easier administration >>>> interface... >>>> >>>> Are you comparing IIS Admin tools to Apache as a stand alone or to >>>> Mac >>>> OS X Server which ships with Xserve? >>>> >>>> I have also been a long-time WebSTAR guy, and I find administering >>>> Apache only slightly more difficult than WebSTAR � a small price for >>>> the additional power and flexibility. Additionally, Mac OS X Server >>>> on >>>> Xserve gives you so many more tools than WebSTAR including what I >>>> have >>>> read to be unprecedented hardware/software integration. I don�t know >>>> much about the IIS interface, but the server admin tools seem to be >>>> fairly robust, especially for multiple servers. Plus, like everything >>>> else Apple does, they are extremely intuitive, which, coming from a >>>> graphic background, is important to me. Here�s a like to the GUI if >>>> anyone�s interested. http://www.apple.com/xserve/management.html >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert, while your post provides some good information, I looked at >>>> it >>>> and questioned whether there was a true 'apples' and 'apples' >>>> comparison. While it is true that IIS does have an easier >>>> administration interface, it comes at what I feel is a very heavy >>>> cost. Yes WebSTAR is/was a wonderful server mainly because of its >>>> ease-of-use but I believe that prior to your PrimeBase days you were >>>> a >>>> Butler user. I don't think that PrimeBase or any other SQL engine has >>>> as easy-to-use interface as Butler did. You made some concessions >>>> when >>>> you selected PrimeBase as your current engine. There's no preventing >>>> those that select Apache from making similar concessions. >>>> >>>> What I am trying to say is let's find a closer 'apples' to 'apples' >>>> comparison. Apache/Witango/database on Windows vs. >>>> Apache/Witango/database on OS X. One other thing that I wondered >>>> about >>>> when I was reading your post is whether the problem lies with the >>>> Apache plug-in vs. the IIS plug-in. I'm not knowledgeable enough to >>>> guess whether there is that possibility but my lack of knowledge >>>> would >>>> make me raise the question for those that can to answer. >>>> >>>> I want to steer this back towards the simpler comparison but I will >>>> comment on what you said about costs (and Ben's comment). >>>> >>>> Ben makes a very good point. Yes 'hardware' is much cheaper on the >>>> Windows side but we must factor the total cost of >>>> ownership/maintenance into the equation. How much does the Win2k or >>>> Win2003 server licence cost? How much time/money does it cost to keep >>>> up-to-date with the service patches and make sure that they are >>>> properly applied? Perhaps, because you are doing these yourself, you >>>> don't consider that time to have a cost. One very important lesson I >>>> received from a recent self-employment course I took was to factor in >>>> what it would cost to have someone else do the work if you were >>>> unable >>>> to do it. That will give a truer value on what your operating costs >>>> are. >>>> >>>> Hope this helps, >>>> >>>> Steve Smith >>>> >>>> Oakbridge Information Solutions >>>> Office: (519) 624-4388 >>>> GTA: ���(416) 606-3885 >>>> Fax: ���(519) 624-3353 >>>> Cell: ��(416) 606-3885 >>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Web: ���http://www.oakbridge.ca <http://www.oakbridge.ca/> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ben Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: June 4, 2003 12:29 PM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: Mac OSX performance >>>> >>>> Great info, >>>> >>>> � >>>> >>>> What I want is you supplier on the $700 server. Does this come with >>>> the Win2k server license? >>>> >>>> Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com >>>> Authorized Witango Reseller http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm >>>> Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller >>>> http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Robert Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:38 AM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Mac OSX performance >>>> >>>> � >>>> >>>> I have done a lot of research on this. I am a huge Mac enthusiast, >>>> and >>>> I wanted to go with OS X, and worked very heavily with Andre(stone >>>> steps) and Witango when they were developing the v5 OS X version. >>>> >>>> There were a lot of bugs in the first OS X version, it would crash >>>> under any load, and as they were able to fix those issues, and make >>>> the server more reliable, I noticed the server slowly decreased in >>>> performance. When 054 came out, I did some benchtesting with Mac and >>>> Windows versions going head to head, with the same code, hitting the >>>> same database. My database screams, so I know that is not any >>>> bottleneck. >>>> >>>> I first did a bunch of tests to determine the optimum configuration >>>> for each platform, and found that the Windows Witango server needs to >>>> stay at 10 threads, and the OS X version can vary between 10-20, but >>>> no more than 20. >>>> >>>> It is also very important to know that the cache was in complete use >>>> on both test systems. It has been my experience that the cache in the >>>> Witango Server is the single biggest performance booster. Use cache, >>>> and add memory to your system so that you use it alot. Also, when >>>> cache is off, your server will be less reliable, especially on OS X. >>>> I >>>> can cause crashes with the cache off, that I cannot seem to cause >>>> with >>>> the cache on (at least in 054). >>>> >>>> The windows system was a AMD XP 2100 Processor (1.7ghz) with 512 megs >>>> of ram running 2000 server and IIS 5. The mac system running on a G4 >>>> dual 1ghz with OS X Server 10.2. The database was on a G4 dual 1ghz, >>>> using primebase. I find these systems to be good for comparison, >>>> especially since Witango only uses one processor on the mac. >>>> >>>> I used apache bench to hit the servers, it allows a set number of >>>> hits, and simulates concurrent users. >>>> >>>> I first tested the performance of IIS 5 on the Windows sys, vs Apache >>>> 1.3.27 on the Mac. Apache edged out IIS by about 25%. >>>> >>>> I then tested the Witango performance. I tested the servers >>>> repeatedly >>>> simulating multiple users. I tested the performance on relatively >>>> simple tml files, with no db access, and I also tested with a image >>>> library taf that pulles info and thumbnails from the db. I found the >>>> Windows server to usaually be around 80% faster. It was a big >>>> difference. I have a long text document of my results, although I >>>> have >>>> not thoroughly notated it, and is a little cryptic. I am attaching >>>> it, >>>> since it is small. >>>> >>>> My conclusions and observations: Basically, use windows to serve. My >>>> experience is that Windows is faster and more reliable as a server >>>> platform for Witango. Also, even if all tests were equal, I think I >>>> would still choose windows for the following reasons: >>>> >>>> 1. As an administrator of multiple servers, witango, mail, database, >>>> etc, Windows 2000 is much easier to administrate and administrate >>>> remotely. Especially with the free Remote Desktop Connection for OS >>>> X. >>>> 2. Hardware is dirt cheap on Windows. You spend a ton on XServe. So >>>> what if the XServe has better hardware redundancy and should be more >>>> reliable. I can set up two load balanced Windows servers for about >>>> $700 each, which gives me complete redundancy, which is even more >>>> reliable. >>>> 3. I am an old Webstar guy, and apache is a pain in the ass. I am >>>> completely proficient in it, and deployed with it for months. I hate >>>> the fact that you have to restart the server to accept a change. I >>>> hate that if you screw up in syntax, you have almost no help finding >>>> the problem, so you have to make small changes restart and repeat to >>>> be safe. Maybe you type perfectly, I don't. IIS 5 is so easy and >>>> flexible, and Webstar like. It is even better than webstar. It is >>>> designed to make changes on the fly. It is designed to serve from >>>> network shares. I love it. I check security patches once a week, and >>>> have never had a security issue. >>>> >>>> IMHO, OS X still has a way to go to be a mature server platform. Phil >>>> might have more to say about that. I do know that Witango had to go >>>> through a lot of extra hoops to work on OS X, and that may be why >>>> performance lacks. >>>> >>>> Also, some may argue that Apache is faster, and should be used. That >>>> is like comparing the speed of a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, and you >>>> live in Southern California. You can never get the sucker up to 200 >>>> mph anyway, so go with the one that is funner to drive. That is how >>>> it >>>> is with Apache and IIS. They are both much faster than they need to >>>> be. They can fill up a T1 on a pentium 90. The bottleneck is Witango, >>>> and your database, not the webserver, unless you use some server that >>>> I don't know of that really tanks. >>>> >>>> Hope this helps. I spent many, many hours on this question. >>>> >>>> Robert. >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>> __ >>>> _ >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >>>> >>>> >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>> __ >>>> _ >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
