On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:35:37PM +0000, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Also, I would guess that well written C++ is faster than well written > perl for some tasks.
For nigh-on all tasks! But remember, programmer time costs a lot more than run time. > And I would guess based on guessing that IIS scales > better over multiple CPUs than Linux/apache Not really. Linux (on x86) scales well to two processors, and pretty well to four. Above four it's a bit uurgh. Apache likewise, as the OS will Do The Right Thing and run different apache processes on different processors. NT (and therefore I assume Win2K) scales pretty similarly. Above four CPUs, you need a custom version of NT, and you don't get a great deal of benefit anyway. IIRC IIS runs multi-threaded instead of as multiple processes, but again, the OS tends to distribute threads across all the available processors in a fairly sane way. </oversimplification> As you stated (in the bit I've snipped out) it's more common to parallelise across many small machines than to have a small number of honking great big ones*, so the point is rather moot. And please remember, Linux is not the only Apache platform. * - those multiple small machines might be partitions of a single big machine of course, like a Sun Ebignum or some IBM behemoth. -- David Cantrell | Reprobate | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Educating this luser would be something to frustrate even the unflappable Yoda and make him jam a lightsaber up his arse while screaming "praise evil, the Dark Side is your friend!". -- Derek Balling, in the Monastery
