From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:29:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:28:45 -0400 Received: from cc361913-a.flrtn1.occa.home.com ([24.0.193.171]:21636 "EHLO mirai.cx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:28:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3B0577E0.A4CAF354@mirai.cx> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:28:32 -0700 From: J Sloan Organization: Mirai Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-ac11 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Bultje CC: linux-kernel Subject: [OT] Re: Linux scalability? In-Reply-To: <990173560.6346.0.camel@adslgw> <990174686.12881.18.camel@tux.bitfreak.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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