[OT] Re: Linux scalability?

[J Sloan <jjs@mirai.cx>]

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