-----------------------------
Please read the FAQ!
<http://java.apache.org/faq/>
-----------------------------
I agree with both Jean-Michel and Mark.
As of right now, the NT/Intel combination is the best, at least if
you believe the recent (yet controversial) Mindcraft/PC Week "open
benchmarks", in which the NT/Intel combo siginficantly outperformed
Linux, _even with_ the Red Hat guys tuning Linux for the benchmark.
I believe part of the problem was traced to the Linux lack of multi-
threaded IP stack (something which has since been addressed), but it
goes to show you that, while Linux is certainly an important platform,
right now it is still NT/Intel which provide the best price/performance
guarantee.
I don't work for Microsoft or any anti-Linux company, I am simply
relaying metrics which have already been published by what most
people believe to be an impartial organization. YMMV. I encourage
you to read the whole benchmark report. I don't think this is the forum
to debate - in general - Linux vs. NT, but I thought that at least the
topic was relevant to the poster of the question below. I think any
ongoing bashing should NOT involve this list.
The summary of the tests can be found at:
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
(site appears to be down this morning)
greg
Jean-Michel Leon wrote:
>
> -----------------------------
> Please read the FAQ!
> <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
> -----------------------------
>
> I concur with Mark, I have the same experience with Linux on Java: it is
> slow, and way behind what you get on Solaris/NT. Performance wise,
> today, Intel/NT is the best combination for running Java (it is very
> interesting to see the performance of JServ getting better as HotSpot
> starts kicking).
>
> I'd suggest to run Apache on Linux for the web front-end, and have
> JServ(s) running on NT boxes. It stays cheap, because it's PC hardware,
> and combines the good performance/reliability of apache on Linux, and
> the good performance of java on NT. It also allows to have 1 apache with
> multiple JServs so that your system stays up when NT crashes.
>
> jm.
>
> Tim Reilly wrote:
>
> > Can anyone confirm this? Honestly, this scares the hell out of me.
> >
> > We're planning on using the IBM 1.1.8 JDK for Linux. In a perfect world,
> > we'd be deploying on Solaris, but unfortunately we're a startup company
> > and we just can't afford it as of yet.
> >
> > -Tim
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Marc Slemko wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Tim Reilly wrote:
> > >
> > > > The company I work for is in the late stages of re-architecting our entire
> > > > website using Apache JServ, RedHat Linux 6.0, and MySQL. The code is just
> > > > about finished (version 1.0 freezes in the two weeks), and we're trying to
> > > > spec the servers we will need for deployment. The problem is that I
> > > > really have no idea what class of machine is required.
> > >
> > > Be very very very cautious about even thinking of deploying any site that
> > > has a high load and significant Java code using Linux. This is not a
> > > slight to Linux, but simply due to the immaturity and poor performance of
> > > JVMs on Linux.
> > >
> > > The JVMs that are out there either have horrible performance or are
> > > unstable under load. The blackdown 1.1 one is pretty stable using green
> > > threads, but is horribly slow for IO due to green threads, and IO is about
> > > all most server side java code does.
> > >
> > > The current blackdown 1.2 using native threads (with or without jit) is
> > > quite unstable under high load. Some bits of code will crash it fairly
> > > reliably, other times it just hangs or SEGVs under heavy load.
> > >
> > > IBM's JVM is so-so in terms of performance, but may have problems under
> > > load due to the immaturity of Linux threads. Until recently, there were
> > > also problems that made it not work right with jserv due to it improperly
> > > reporting that there was no more data to be read on a socket instead of
> > > blocking.
> > >
> > > In my experience, the price/performance for a sparc box running Solaris is
> > > actually _better_ than that on Linux (even if the box is 5x as expensive),
> > > and a whole lot more reliable, since the JVMs are so much better.
> > >
> > > You also need to be very careful about what queries you give to mysql. It
> > > does not (at least did not) handle concurrent queries; ie. it finishes one
> > > before starting the next, so a single expensive query can kill the whole
> > > site for some time, make things backup, etc. As long as everything is an
> > > easy select that can be done via indexes, things are reasonable but it
> > > requires careful design of accesses and updates.
> > >
> > > Now, my definition of "high traffic" may or may not be more than your
> > > definition. But the above is based on my experience trying to deploy a
> > > fairly high traffic site running a JVM on Linux.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
> > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
::: Greg Barish ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
