Hope this helps,
Steve Smith
Oakbridge Information Solutions
Office: (519) 624-4388
GTA: (416) 606-3885
Fax: (519) 624-3353
Cell: (416) 606-3885
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.oakbridge.ca
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 07:07 PM, Robert Garcia wrote:
One more thing. As far as Primebase. No it does not have as easy an interface as butler. I loved butler. Primebase is as close as I found, when performance is paramount. The good news is, I am actually writing a simple GUI admin interface to Primebase, that will run on windows or Mac. It is not just a private work, I have the support of PrimeBase, and it will be released as there own.
Also, I don't understand this comment: "There's no preventing those that select Apache from making similar concessions."
Lastly, as far as ownership costs. Keeping my win servers patched is a very minor downside. I have had no problems, and I do it on Saturday night, along with other maintenance that must be done. It is alot easier than patching an apache installation, that much is sure.
Robert.
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 10:54 AM, Robert Garcia wrote:
I have tested Apache/Windows/Witango. As a matter of fact, that is how I deployed when I first moved from OS 9 to windows. I used the IBM Apache server, with T2K, and then with Witango 5. The only reason I stayed away from IIS was due to security fears. I got very tired of Apache. I tested IIS thoroughly, and it was in the same league as apache, albeit, a little slower. The tests I made with Witango v5 on IIS versus apache were very similar. As far as performance goes, neither seemed to hinder or help Witango any more than the other. So I believe my test is apples to apples, only because I have already done the testing with apache on windows.
Also, there was a time period, where I tested everything. I could not get a good answer on the best OS/WebServer/platform for T2K, so I tested it all with apachebench. I have the saved results somewhere. I even tested it thoroughly on Linux. It was after this testing that I knew one thing for sure. Get off of OS 9. I went to Windows 2000 server running Apache from IBM, and T2K. I chose this over linux mainly due to administration ease. I am very proficient with linux, but Windows was easier. The performance was almost the same. I did see incredible performance with the RED HAT web server (I think it was called tux or something) that is built into the kernel. It was amazing. But all of my content is through tango, so that didn't matter. Tango/Witango is always the bottleneck. After about 4-5 months on Windows apache, I went to IIS 5, and just checked for security patches once a week. I have never looked back.
The bottom line, is that I have tested about every configuration, except for the new linux witango 5, and I don't think I will unless someone tells me witango is much better there.
Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and everything Mac. I am on a DP 1GHZ machine now. I am in a room with 6 macs and one lonely test PC. When the mac comes around as a server (IMHO) I will move everything over just to move from Microsoft. But it isn't there.
Lastly, I put together my servers by myself, and pick out each component indepently. They are as hardware reliable as my macs. I have yet to experience a hardware failure. I take that back, I did have a power supply go out. But I have had the same problems on the Macs. The only difference was that it only took a $40 visit to Fry's to fix the PC server.
Robert.
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
Robert, while your post provides some good information, I looked at it and questioned whether there was a true 'apples' and 'apples' comparison. While it is true that IIS does have an easier administration interface, it comes at what I feel is a very heavy cost. Yes WebSTAR is/was a wonderful server mainly because of its ease-of-use but I believe that prior to your PrimeBase days you were a Butler user. I don't think that PrimeBase or any other SQL engine has as easy-to-use interface as Butler did. You made some concessions when you selected PrimeBase as your current engine. There's no preventing those that select Apache from making similar concessions.
What I am trying to say is let's find a closer 'apples' to 'apples' comparison. Apache/Witango/database on Windows vs. Apache/Witango/database on OS X. One other thing that I wondered about when I was reading your post is whether the problem lies with the Apache plug-in vs. the IIS plug-in. I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess whether there is that possibility but my lack of knowledge would make me raise the question for those that can to answer.
I want to steer this back towards the simpler comparison but I will comment on what you said about costs (and Ben's comment).
Ben makes a very good point. Yes 'hardware' is much cheaper on the Windows side but we must factor the total cost of ownership/maintenance into the equation. How much does the Win2k or Win2003 server licence cost? How much time/money does it cost to keep up-to-date with the service patches and make sure that they are properly applied? Perhaps, because you are doing these yourself, you don't consider that time to have a cost. One very important lesson I received from a recent self-employment course I took was to factor in what it would cost to have someone else do the work if you were unable to do it. That will give a truer value on what your operating costs are.
Hope this helps,
Steve Smith
Oakbridge Information Solutions
Office: (519) 624-4388
GTA: (416) 606-3885
Fax: (519) 624-3353
Cell: (416) 606-3885
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.oakbridge.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 4, 2003 12:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: Mac OSX performance
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.
________________________________________________________________________
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
--
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/
--
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/
