Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
Andrew Piskorski said: Btw, if Sun really does follow through and open-source Solaris like they've said they will, it should be interesting to see what sort of cross-fertilization of ideas and techniques may go on between the Solaris and Linux worlds. Only to close-source it again a year or two later and then blackmail all Linux users for a license? Where have I heard that one before!? ;-) Bas. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:28:17AM -0500, Elliott Phil Civ AFMSA/SGSID wrote: Just to let you know: The backend in this case is a Sun F6800 w/ 12 cpu, 12 GB RAM running Sol8. When I get a chance I'm thinking of a fronted box with each of the OS platforms hitting the backend. (all of this in my spare time, LOL)--Phil Another DD in his spare time installed debian on a E1, so I think you could do that with a minimal hacking. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
Your numbers are very interesting. I've been telling people Sun hardware is just as fast but cheaper and they look at me like I've got 3 eyes or something. v240 2 processor 2 gig ram 2 x 73 gig drives Solaris 9 $6895 1747 c/s Compaq DL 360 2 processor 2 gig ram 2 x 73 gig drives Redhat AS 2.1 $7405 1835 c/s On the low end I run Sun X1's off ebay for $400 or the V100 for $995. Even if they only manage 1% of the v240 numbers that's 17 c/s. More than enough for development and most sites. The Sun is a 64 bit machine and has LOM so you can manage it completely from the serial port. I've never used Compaq. Can you power it up and install it without being there? Not that is matters but did you test the 1 gig or 1.28 gig Sun box. the 1.28 just came out. Also in that config the v210 would be $4945 with the 1 gig processors. Basically $2500 cheaper than the Compaq and within 10% of the performance. Given the variability of benchmarks I'd call it a dead heat in performance and price/performance. It's really more which you'd rather use. I personally think you need a 64bit box to run a database and I'd rather have all Sun than mix Solaris and Linux. I would like to see Xserve numbers. I have run the Xraid and it's very impressive Barry On Jun 23, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Adam Leff wrote: Sure. I think the Ops guys there might still have an Xserve laying around. He's right... we do. I'm still not sure if it's ever been turned on. ;) The bigger question is what the bench marks would be exactly. Bingo. It all depends on the application. Most of the testing that's done on webservers is *usually* how it deals under duress serving static pages... yes, there are dynamic testing benchmarks out there. There are so many flippin' ways we use AOLserver just at AOL that it's completely unfair to say that AOLserver X.X is better on Solaris than it is on Linux. You have to take so many things into consideration (external dependencies, databases, compilation options, OS tuning parameters). Comparing AOLserver as used by AOL.com to AOLserver as used by Moviefone.com or even AOLserver as a backend application layer isn't fair. So that's why we do our best to test each application and its dependencies. Sadly, usually the testing is done after the hardware is purchased. Yay for compressed timeframes. But then again, the prices of x86 hardware (and the associated support contracts) make executives happy. :) That being said, I did a test a little bit ago slamming the begeezus out of an .adp page with a bunch of ns_adp_puts in it (so I was exercising the Tcl interpreters, not just the fastpath stuff) on a few platforms: Sun Fire V240, Solaris 9, AOLserver 3.5.10: 1871 conns/sec Sun Fire V240, Solaris 9, AOLserver 4.0.1: 1747 conns/sec Compaq DL 360, RH AS 2.1, AOLserver 3.5.10: 1880 conns/sec Compaq DL 360, RH AS 2.1, AOLserver 4.0.1: 1835 conns/sec Compaq Proliant, RH AS 3.0, AOLserver 3.5.10: 2220 conns/sec Compaq Proliant, RH AS 3.0, AOLserver 4.0.1: 2256 conns/sec As predicted, Red Hat Advanced Server 3.0 came out on top, most likely due to NPTL. The boxes were all hovering between 60-80% CPU utilization... network saturated. ~Adam Adam Leff AOL Web Operations -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
Barry Books said: v240 2 processor 2 gig ram 2 x 73 gig drives Solaris 9 $6895 1747 c/s Compaq DL 360 2 processor 2 gig ram 2 x 73 gig drives Redhat AS 2.1 $7405 1835 c/s The term DL360 as absolutely useless to identify the hardware in the machine. I bought a truckload of them in 2000 and they were mostly single 933GHz P3s. The current models have 1 or 2 3.2 GHz Xeons, so that comparison isn't fair untill we see what hardware was actualy used! from the serial port. I've never used Compaq. Can you power it up and install it without being there? Newer models come with LOM integrated, not sure how well it works, though. But not as nice as Sun. At an ISP I worked, all we did was put them on the management network, added their MAC to the setup server and told which disk config to use for that MAC, turned it on, waited a while et voila, standard build ready to go. Given the variability of benchmarks I'd call it a dead heat in Not so fast, first see what is really in those boxes! In any case, with Intel, you have the option of going dirt cheap and get redundancy in numbers. This isn't a good strategy if all you need for your app is one fast server and one for fail over. But once you get to the point where you need, say, 10 of them, each of which is allowed to fail at any time, you can just buy yourself some motherboards, CPUs, memory and IDE drives and stick em in a cheap rackmount case. Those are cheap enough to have some spares and you won't have to pay for 24x7x4 support either... Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Sun at all; I love their boxes. And I know they are faster-per-Hz than their Intel-based counterparts. But I don't believe they are as good value as you say they are! Bas. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
On Jun 24, 2004, at 09:52, Barry Books wrote: The Sun is a 64 bit machine and has LOM so you can manage it completely from the serial port. I've never used Compaq. Can you power it up and install it without being there? The Proliants have a pretty nice management interface that allows you to power-up/down, etc... the console redirection is really bad though. They have something called the management pass-thru that's not too bad, but you can't see the entire boot-up process. The serial on the DL 360s we have is not too bad, but Sun so far is pretty superior in that aspect. We have a team that handles the imaging of our machines before they're passed to us, so we don't really have a need for remote network installs. Not that is matters but did you test the 1 gig or 1.28 gig Sun box. the 1.28 just came out. Also in that config the v210 would be $4945 with the 1 gig processors. Basically $2500 cheaper than the Compaq and within 10% of the performance. I did neglect to mention the box configuration in my first email. My bad. The Sun V240 is a 2x1Ghz UltraSparcIIIi running Sol9... I didn't have a 1.28Ghz box available at the time I was doing the tests. The DL 360 is a 2x2.8Ghz Xeon. The Proliant is a 2x3.2Ghz Xeon. All with 2 GB of RAM. So yes, you could argue that the Proliant results are possible skewed because of the difference in processor speed. That wasn't the question we were trying to answer though... we wanted to find out whether we could get the same performance out of a Linux 2x2 that we currently get out of a Sun 2x2... in the front-end applications that we tested, the answer was yes. That's certainly not ALWAYS the case... but in our findings it was true. I didn't do any scale testing on databases or other backend apps of that nature. ~Adam Adam Leff AOL Web Operations -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
Adam Leff said: The Sun V240 is a 2x1Ghz UltraSparcIIIi running Sol9... I didn't have a 1.28Ghz box available at the time I was doing the tests. The DL 360 is a 2x2.8Ghz Xeon. The Proliant is a 2x3.2Ghz Xeon. All with 2 GB of Wow, that's closer than I thought! Mind you, you can get a 2x 3.2GHz/2GB/2x73GB15K machine for a lot less from Dell than from HP/Compaq. But in the end, I guess when you buy brands, it doesn't seem to matter much in price if you go with Sun or any other. I wonder if these 1GHz Suns also need less juice and stay cooler. Not an unimportant consideration; apperantly Google settled on 1GHz machines for their Ireland data centre for that same reason as they could fit more machines in and thus have more CPU power in total. RAM. So yes, you could argue that the Proliant results are possible skewed because of the difference in processor speed. And cache? That 2.8 probably has 512K, the 3.2 likely 1MB, possibly 2. Bas. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] A slight change of subject......
It supprised me also. I had switched to Intel because of cost but lately I've switch back to Sun. It would be interesting to compare numbers between a Compaq and Dell. You would think they would be similar but I think there is a great deal of difference between a $400 2.8 gig P4 and an $800 2.8 gig P4. I did switch from Dell to Sun, but I never did any detailed beachmarking. My informal testing made me think the Sun was as fast or faster. I've run on Intel (Windows and Linux), OSX and Sun. The great thing about AOLServer is you can switch platforms with very little effort. I've even developed on Sun and deployed on Windows with no problems. I did look up the wattage on the Sun and Compaq and they are similar. I suspect the Sparc chip uses less power but by the time you run the rest of the stuff inside the machine there is not much difference. The X1/V100's are a different story. I think they use around 30 watts, but it probably takes 5 to 10 of them to equal a v240. Whatever you pick take a look at the Apple Xraid. 3.5 terabytes and fibre channel for 10K is a good deal and they work just fine with a v240 and Solaris. I even used Apple's fibre channel card in the Sun box. Rumor has it they also work with Linux. Not only are the cheap per gig I think they beat scsi on performance because for the same price you can get nearly 3x the number of spindles while scsi only has 2x the rotation speed. Barry On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 02:04PM, Bas Scheffers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam Leff said: The Sun V240 is a 2x1Ghz UltraSparcIIIi running Sol9... I didn't have a 1.28Ghz box available at the time I was doing the tests. The DL 360 is a 2x2.8Ghz Xeon. The Proliant is a 2x3.2Ghz Xeon. All with 2 GB of Wow, that's closer than I thought! Mind you, you can get a 2x 3.2GHz/2GB/2x73GB15K machine for a lot less from Dell than from HP/Compaq. But in the end, I guess when you buy brands, it doesn't seem to matter much in price if you go with Sun or any other. I wonder if these 1GHz Suns also need less juice and stay cooler. Not an unimportant consideration; apperantly Google settled on 1GHz machines for their Ireland data centre for that same reason as they could fit more machines in and thus have more CPU power in total. RAM. So yes, you could argue that the Proliant results are possible skewed because of the difference in processor speed. And cache? That 2.8 probably has 512K, the 3.2 likely 1MB, possibly 2. Bas. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
[AOLSERVER] shutdown failure on Windows
With the stock AOLserver 4.0.5 on Windows XP (running inside VMware on Linux), I'm seeing a problem where sometimes AOLserver will not shut down. It gets this far in the log: [24/Jun/2004:16:16:28][3636.1652][-main-] Notice: nsmain: AOLserver/4.0.5 stopping but then keeps running indefinitely, and must be kill -9'd (well, the Windows Terminate Process equivalent) in order to get rid of it. The problem seems to be triggered by running ns_sendmail. If I've run ns_sendmail at least once, AOLserver won't shut down. If I have never run ns_sendmail, it shuts down fine. In this case, I have AOLserver configured to use a Linux box across the net as its mailhost, and the email does get delivered just fine. I do NOT see this problem on Solaris. I didn't try it on Linux. This sounds superficially similar to the Bug #667651 where AOLserver wouldn't shutdown after running scheduled procs. The fact that it only seems to happen on Windows is suspicious, though. Anyone have suggestions of what the problem might be or where I should start looking for it? -- Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.piskorski.com/ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] shutdown failure on Windows
See bug report http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=772649group_id=3152atid=103152 about similar problem i had with Windows. After that fix i've never had any problem with shutdown and i do shutdown of Aolserevr on Win2000 every night for more than a year because of other buggy DLL. Andrew Piskorski wrote: With the stock AOLserver 4.0.5 on Windows XP (running inside VMware on Linux), I'm seeing a problem where sometimes AOLserver will not shut down. It gets this far in the log: [24/Jun/2004:16:16:28][3636.1652][-main-] Notice: nsmain: AOLserver/4.0.5 stopping but then keeps running indefinitely, and must be kill -9'd (well, the Windows Terminate Process equivalent) in order to get rid of it. The problem seems to be triggered by running ns_sendmail. If I've run ns_sendmail at least once, AOLserver won't shut down. If I have never run ns_sendmail, it shuts down fine. In this case, I have AOLserver configured to use a Linux box across the net as its mailhost, and the email does get delivered just fine. I do NOT see this problem on Solaris. I didn't try it on Linux. This sounds superficially similar to the Bug #667651 where AOLserver wouldn't shutdown after running scheduled procs. The fact that it only seems to happen on Windows is suspicious, though. Anyone have suggestions of what the problem might be or where I should start looking for it? -- Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.piskorski.com/ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- Vlad Seryakov 703 488-2173 office [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
