In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
wrote:
>> Thank you for not telling it to one of my servers which is running
>> around with about 10 concurrent connections biting its tail. I
>> wouldn't like to hurt its feelings. And I've got the feeling that it
>> will have to bear a bit more of that bea
Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Thank you for not telling it to one of my servers which is running
> > around with about 10 concurrent connections biting its tail. I
> > wouldn't like to hurt its feelings. And I've got the feeling that it
> > will have to bear a bit more of that beating.
>
> Interest
Rik van Riel wrote:
> > How about a real benchmark?
>
> Good question indeed. All proposed benchmarks in this thread
> have been geared heavily towards one system or the other and
> are not at all "industry standard" benchmarks.
>
> > At www.spec.org I see SPECweb99 numbers for Solaris, AIX,
> >
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> > This "postmark" test is useless self flagellation.
>
> The benchmark tests what it was meant to test: performance
> on huge directories.
Which is useless, since only degenerate software results
in huge directories.
I have yet to see one example of software whic
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > The intent of the "test" is obviously intended to show
> > certain facts which we all know to be self-evident under
> > strange load conditions which are patently "unreal".
>
> > I would suggest a better test would be to op
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Søren Schmidt wrote:
> If somebody sends me the 800 US$ the software costs, or better
> get me the software for free (we are a free OS right) I'll gladly
> run it through a variety of machines here...
If you think this is the problem, I'll happily chip in $50;
it would be i
It seems Rik van Riel wrote:
> > At www.spec.org I see SPECweb99 numbers for Solaris, AIX,
> > Linux, Windows, Tru64, and HP-UX. FreeBSD must be hiding,
> > because I don't see it. BSDI, Walnut Creek, and WindRiver
> > all have failed to submit results.
>
> > Linux is still #1 for 1 to 4 processo
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Noses wrote:
> Thank you for not telling it to one of my servers which is running
> around with about 10 concurrent connections biting its tail. I
> wouldn't like to hurt its feelings. And I've got the feeling that it
> will have to bear a bit more of that beating.
Inter
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > I would suggest a better test would be to open _at least_
> > 250,000 connections to a server running under both FreeBSD
> > and Linux. I was able to do this without breaking a sweat
> > on a correctly configured FreeBSD 4.3 system.
>
> How abou
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> I would suggest a better test would be to open _at least_ 250,000
>> connections to a server
>
> That would certainly qualify for the "patently unreal" part, but I don't
> know what else you want to prove he
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > The intent of the "test" is obviously intended to show
> > certain facts which we all know to be self-evident under
> > strange load conditions which are patently "unreal".
>
> > I would suggest a better test would be to op
> This "postmark" test is useless self flagellation.
The benchmark tests what it was meant to test: performance
on huge directories.
> The intent of the "test" is obviously intended to show
> certain facts which we all know to be self-evident under
> strange load conditions which are patently "
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The intent of the "test" is obviously intended to show
> certain facts which we all know to be self-evident under
> strange load conditions which are patently "unreal".
> I would suggest a better test would be to open _at least_
> 250,000 connections t
13 matches
Mail list logo
