Once I get witango running on Redhat 9, I'll post some info. My new Dell box cost $642 plus tax.
2.4 GHz P4, 512 MMB DDR SDRAM, 2x80GB 7200 RPM IDE drives, gigabit ethernet, CD/floppy, KB, mouse. $40 for Redhat linux. it's configured with software RAID (mirrored) and ext3 journaling file system. >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 Bill Conlon To the Point 345 California Avenue Suite 2 Palo Alto, CA 94306 office: 650.327.2175 fax: 650.329.8335 mobile: 650.906.9929 e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.tothept.com ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
