1U chenbro case: $175 (includes power supply and fans)
Tyan server motherboard with onboard video and dual lan: $170
Sweet Price Spot P4: $150 (about 1.8 ghz)
Low profile fan/heatsink: $40
512 meg ram: $80
CD: $40
HD: $75 (just for boot, all server files are on server)
Total $730
Windows 2003 server will have a webserver only license for about $400.
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 09:28 AM, Ben Johansen wrote:
Great info,
What I want is you supplier on the $700 server. Does this come with the Win2k server license?
Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com
Authorized Witango Reseller http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm
Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller
http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm
-----Original Message-----
From:Robert Garcia[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Mac OSX performance
I have done a lot of research on this. I am a huge Mac enthusiast, and I wanted to go with OS X, and worked very heavily with Andre(stone steps) and Witango when they were developing the v5 OS X version.
There were a lot of bugs in the first OS X version, it would crash under any load, and as they were able to fix those issues, and make the server more reliable, I noticed the server slowly decreased in performance. When 054 came out, I did some benchtesting with Mac and Windows versions going head to head, with the same code, hitting the same database. My database screams, so I know that is not any bottleneck.
I first did a bunch of tests to determine the optimum configuration for each platform, and found that the Windows Witango server needs to stay at 10 threads, and the OS X version can vary between 10-20, but no more than 20.
It is also very important to know that the cache was in complete use on both test systems. It has been my experience that the cache in the Witango Server is the single biggest performance booster. Use cache, and add memory to your system so that you use it alot. Also, when cache is off, your server will be less reliable, especially on OS X. I can cause crashes with the cache off, that I cannot seem to cause with the cache on (at least in 054).
The windows system was a AMD XP 2100 Processor (1.7ghz) with 512 megs of ram running 2000 server and IIS 5. The mac system running on a G4 dual 1ghz with OS X Server 10.2. The database was on a G4 dual 1ghz, using primebase. I find these systems to be good for comparison, especially since Witango only uses one processor on the mac.
I used apache bench to hit the servers, it allows a set number of hits, and simulates concurrent users.
I first tested the performance of IIS 5 on the Windows sys, vs Apache 1.3.27 on the Mac. Apache edged out IIS by about 25%.
I then tested the Witango performance. I tested the servers repeatedly simulating multiple users. I tested the performance on relatively simple tml files, with no db access, and I also tested with a image library taf that pulles info and thumbnails from the db. I found the Windows server to usaually be around 80% faster. It was a big difference. I have a long text document of my results, although I have not thoroughly notated it, and is a little cryptic. I am attaching it, since it is small.
My conclusions and observations: Basically, use windows to serve. My experience is that Windows is faster and more reliable as a server platform for Witango. Also, even if all tests were equal, I think I would still choose windows for the following reasons:
1. As an administrator of multiple servers, witango, mail, database, etc, Windows 2000 is much easier to administrate and administrate remotely. Especially with the free Remote Desktop Connection for OS X.
2. Hardware is dirt cheap on Windows. You spend a ton on XServe. So what if the XServe has better hardware redundancy and should be more reliable. I can set up two load balanced Windows servers for about $700 each, which gives me complete redundancy, which is even more reliable.
3. I am an old Webstar guy, and apache is a pain in the ass. I am completely proficient in it, and deployed with it for months. I hate the fact that you have to restart the server to accept a change. I hate that if you screw up in syntax, you have almost no help finding the problem, so you have to make small changes restart and repeat to be safe. Maybe you type perfectly, I don't. IIS 5 is so easy and flexible, and Webstar like. It is even better than webstar. It is designed to make changes on the fly. It is designed to serve from network shares. I love it. I check security patches once a week, and have never had a security issue.
IMHO, OS X still has a way to go to be a mature server platform. Phil might have more to say about that. I do know that Witango had to go through a lot of extra hoops to work on OS X, and that may be why performance lacks.
Also, some may argue that Apache is faster, and should be used. That is like comparing the speed of a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, and you live in Southern California. You can never get the sucker up to 200 mph anyway, so go with the one that is funner to drive. That is how it is with Apache and IIS. They are both much faster than they need to be. They can fill up a T1 on a pentium 90. The bottleneck is Witango, and your database, not the webserver, unless you use some server that I don't know of that really tanks.
Hope this helps. I spent many, many hours on this question.
Robert.
--
Robert Garcia
President - BigHead Technology
CTO - eventpix.com
2781 N Carlmont Pl
Simi Valley, Ca 93065
ph: 805.522.8577 - cell: 805.501.1390
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bighead.net/ - http://eventpix.com/ - http://theradmac.com/
