Re: [OT] Re: Linux scalability?
Peter Rival wrote: > "David S. Miller" wrote: > > > J Sloan writes: > > > Microsoft finally managed to get a better result using > > > an all-out, "bet the farm", "benchmark buster" setup > > > with a special web cache in front of iis. > > > > I haven't heard anyone talk about the fact that their 8-cpu numbers > > got disqualified and aren't even mentioned on the SPEC site on the > > main tables anymore. > > > > Really? I just checked and it's still there from what I see. We're talking > about the Dell 8450/700 w/ IIS & SWC 3.0 result, right? I'm hoping that > they're deemed NC, but I don't see it yet... > IIRC they did have some results disqualified, but them these latest results have been submitted since then - perhaps they will be disqualified as well, once the facts come to light... cu jjs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Linux scalability?
"David S. Miller" wrote: > Peter Rival writes: > > Really? I just checked and it's still there from what I see. We're talking > > about the Dell 8450/700 w/ IIS & SWC 3.0 result, right? I'm hoping that > > they're deemed NC, but I don't see it yet... > > Sorry, they are there in the table, but marked as NC. > > Maybe you need to hit reload in your browser :-) > Yup, one of them is marked as NC. But the other one is still there (and I hit reload and even shift-reload). So either you're missing the second one or something is not behaving nicely with our web proxies here. While I'd probably be more inclined to believe the latter... ;) - Pete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Linux scalability?
Peter Rival writes: > Really? I just checked and it's still there from what I see. We're talking > about the Dell 8450/700 w/ IIS & SWC 3.0 result, right? I'm hoping that > they're deemed NC, but I don't see it yet... Sorry, they are there in the table, but marked as NC. Maybe you need to hit reload in your browser :-) Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Linux scalability?
"David S. Miller" wrote: > J Sloan writes: > > Microsoft finally managed to get a better result using > > an all-out, "bet the farm", "benchmark buster" setup > > with a special web cache in front of iis. > > I haven't heard anyone talk about the fact that their 8-cpu numbers > got disqualified and aren't even mentioned on the SPEC site on the > main tables anymore. > Really? I just checked and it's still there from what I see. We're talking about the Dell 8450/700 w/ IIS & SWC 3.0 result, right? I'm hoping that they're deemed NC, but I don't see it yet... - Pete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Linux scalability?
J Sloan writes: > Microsoft finally managed to get a better result using > an all-out, "bet the farm", "benchmark buster" setup > with a special web cache in front of iis. I haven't heard anyone talk about the fact that their 8-cpu numbers got disqualified and aren't even mentioned on the SPEC site on the main tables anymore. Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: Linux scalability?
Ronald Bultje wrote: > On 18 May 2001 10:12:34 +0200, reiser.angus wrote: > > > However, taking a closer look, it turns out, that the above statement > > > holds true only for 1 and 2 processor machines. Scalability already > > > suffers at 4 processors, and at 8 processors, TUX 2.0 (7500) gets beaten > > > by IIS 5.0 (8001), and these were measured on the same kind of box! > > not really the same box > > look at the disk subsystem > > 7 x 9GB 10KRPM Drives and 1 x 18GB 15KRPM (html+log & os) for Win2000 > > 5 x 9GB 10KRPM Drives (html+log+os) for TUX 2.0 > > > > this is sufficient for a such difference > > I read an article about TUX in the dutch C'T a few months ago (nov/dec > 2000, I think) - the real difference (according to the article) was the > 2.2.x kernel used in TUX. Look at the stats of the website, they used > Redhat 7.0 as base, with kernel 2.2.16. In the C'T, they also used a > 2.4-test kernel for TUX, and this one didn't have these "scalibility > problems". The problem seemed to be SMP problems with systems with more > than two cpus in the 2.2.x-based kernel series. 2.4.x kernels didn't > seem to have this problem. All Tux webservers have run on a 2.4 or 2.4-pre kernel. > And as far as I know, TUX with 2.4.x kernel was faster than win2k on all > SMP-combinations. Tux held the record for most of the time since last summer, when Linux vaulted into 1st place Microsoft finally managed to get a better result using an all-out, "bet the farm", "benchmark buster" setup with a special web cache in front of iis. However, they haven't heard the last of Linux either. cu jjs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
