webservers performance.. linuxoze vs M$ related

[DukePuke]

wtf.. just got disscussion somethere, where some motherfuckers yelled that linux + apache is total crap, insecure,full of bugs, and they are owned by M$ IIS by total server count. (lol, where from such morons came from)..  but strange thing, that they gave me document about webservers performance.. this is quite huge, and looks like serious.. btw i dont know what to say but here it is :

http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_competitive_webbench_performance.pdf

this is strange, microsoft's webservers is fastest?    
btw should i believe it?

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: DukePuke ]

[Refalm]

Nope, there're more webservers running Apache:

(website)

[DukePuke]

heh OK, i know that apache is most popular webserver software but by the way I suggest read that document, which i posted here. This is about webservers performance, speed, etc.. I DONT care what bunch of morons talk that apache is shit and so on, they are unalphabetic kids. but this document looks like strange..

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by DukePuke:
heh OK, i know that apache is most popular webserver software but by the way I suggest read that document, which i posted here. This is about webservers performance, speed, etc.. I DONT care what bunch of morons talk that apache is shit and so on, they are unalphabetic kids. but this document looks like strange..

Try this:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/05/04/most_reliable_hosting_providers_during_april.html

[DukePuke]

insomnia and refalm, ok, you are people who helped me a lot, but i dont ask you much this time.. just opinion about this document :

http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_competitive_webbench_performance.pdf

[insomnia]

quote:Test report prepared under contract from Microsoft

[KernelPanic]

Any test that puts a WinNT server over a Linux server usually stinks.
Arragont as this seems it is the case, and has been in public knowledge since this.

Microsoft meddle with these benchmarks and/or they commision them   :rolleyes:   (the latter is the case with your example - see insomnia's post)

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Tux ]

[M51DPS]

quote:Originally posted by Tux:
Any test that puts a WinNT server over a Linux server usually stinks.
Arrogant as this seems it is the case, and has been in public knowledge since this.

Microsoft meddle with these benchmarks and/or they commission them    :rolleyes:    (the latter is the case with your example - see insomnia's post)

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Tux ]

It's generally a bad idea to trust a product's benchmarks when they're from the company that makes them. Everyone always fiddles with the results, try to find documents from independent organizations.

[DukePuke]

btw ok, i understand this shit, this is damn M$shit propaganda

but damn M$ holds itself solid and self-trusting company, so why the fuck they decrease its reputation with some kind of blury tests and post fake data in public paperz?.

[savet]

Who's going to challenge them?  Redhat?  Suse?  All the commercial linux distros are probably more concerned with the SCO lawsuits than they are about a barely credible performance evaluation.

Besides, technically the study was correct.  In every setup, the windows server outperformed the linux server.  So a very highly tuned windows server was able to beat a very poorly tuned linux server...yippee.  That's like putting a heavily modded civic up against a corvette only firing on one cylinder and saying how superior the civic is to the corvette....or how Japanese engineering is superior (Not that it isn't....my R1 impresses me every time I ride it ).

If anyone has any doubts about which is superior...this link should end the debate.

http://www.bbspot.com/Features/2000/12/os_guide.html

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Rio ]

[savet]

lol...clicked quote instead of edit

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Rio ]

[flap]

The company commissioned to do that study is a partner of Microsoft's.

http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1431211

[hm_murdock]

but there is no OS called linuxoze

[ecsyle_one]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
but there is no OS called linuxoze

lol  

[preacher]

Ok listen. I have seen many a report that puts the performance of Microsoft's IIS webserver above the Apache 1.3.x webserver software. It is a known fact that it is more efficient. Keep in mind, I am a linux junkie and hate Microsoft, but I am not embarrassed to face facts.

But here is another fact, Microsofts webserver software costs $1000+ for each computer it is installed on, and has a multibillion dollar company that develops it. Meanwhile Apache is free. Also Apache 2.x fixed many of the performance problems that 1.3.x suffers from. Did I forget to mention that Apache has suffered far fewer critical flaws than IIS, and they have been detected and patched in a much shorter period of time due to the fact that it is open source. Oh and Apache is the #1 webserver in the world. Not bad from a company no where near the size of Microsoft.

Now even though Microsoft IIS is more efficient than Apache, you have to really look at these stats and question their validity in real world applications. Huge websites such as Amazon.com use apache every day with absolutely no problems. So you really have to wonder if these tests mean anything at all.