Great info,
What I want is you supplier on the $700
server. Does this come with the Win2k server license?
-----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.
