Sean Hunter wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:31:01AM +0200, Sasi Peter wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
> >
> > > Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
> > > webservers with 2 each?
> >
> > As you might already know, after the
Yup. The problem is that you're trying to measure scalability in performance
of an i/o-bound task by comparing a machine with greater i/o resource but less
processing power with one with greater processing but poorer i/o. Surprisingly
enough, the one with the best i/o wins. This isn't really a
Yup. The problem is that you're trying to measure scalability in performance
of an i/o-bound task by comparing a machine with greater i/o resource but less
processing power with one with greater processing but poorer i/o. Surprisingly
enough, the one with the best i/o wins. This isn't really a
Sean Hunter wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:31:01AM +0200, Sasi Peter wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
webservers with 2 each?
As you might already know, after the interviews to Mingo I
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
> Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
> webservers with 2 each?
As you might already know, after the interviews to Mingo I assumed, that a
major portion of the achievements was enabled by the 2.4 scalability
On 18 May 2001, reiser.angus wrote:
> 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
Don't you think that all the really
On 18 May 2001, reiser.angus wrote:
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
Don't you think that all the really needed
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
webservers with 2 each?
As you might already know, after the interviews to Mingo I assumed, that a
major portion of the achievements was enabled by the 2.4 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
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 09:17:11AM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
[Discussion of SPECWeb results]
> Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
> webservers with 2 each?
Because you want to win benchmarketing exercises, not demonstrate that your
architecture has any
"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,
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
"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
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
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
Sasi Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
> scalability linearity recort holder with TUX, referencing the specweb99
> website summary page:
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/web99.html
>
> However, taking a closer
On 18 May 2001 10:30:40 +0200, reiser.angus wrote:
> TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel
> They use a RedHat 7.0 with a 2.4 kernel patched by RedHat (with TUX,
> zerocopy, etc..)
I am pretty sure the C'T article mentioned that TUX did use a 2.2.x
kernel - so it does exist. How else could they make
> 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.
TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel
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),
Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
webservers with 2 each?
Sean
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Sasi Peter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
> scalability linearity recort holder with TUX,
> 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
Hi!
I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
scalability linearity recort holder with TUX, referencing the specweb99
website summary page:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/web99.html
However, taking a closer look, it turns out, that the above statement
holds
Hi!
I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
scalability linearity recort holder with TUX, referencing the specweb99
website summary page:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/web99.html
However, taking a closer look, it turns out, that the above statement
holds
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
Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
webservers with 2 each?
Sean
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Sasi Peter wrote:
Hi!
I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
scalability linearity recort holder with TUX,
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
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.
TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel
They
On 18 May 2001 10:30:40 +0200, reiser.angus wrote:
TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel
They use a RedHat 7.0 with a 2.4 kernel patched by RedHat (with TUX,
zerocopy, etc..)
I am pretty sure the C'T article mentioned that TUX did use a 2.2.x
kernel - so it does exist. How else could they make a
Sasi Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
scalability linearity recort holder with TUX, referencing the specweb99
website summary page:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/web99.html
However, taking a closer look, it
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
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 09:17:11AM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
[Discussion of SPECWeb results]
Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
webservers with 2 each?
Because you want to win benchmarketing exercises, not demonstrate that your
architecture has any
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
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
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
