Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
specweb dyanmic stuff in x86 assembly in their microkernel? :)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
>
> Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
> their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
> specweb dyanmic stuff in x86 assembly in their microkernel? :)
Yeah, but Tux 2 is still faster on the same/similar hardware
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00075.html
On Friday 02 February 2001 02:04, Paul Flinders wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> >
> > Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or
> > is their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting
> > the specweb dyanmic stuff in x86 assembly in their microkernel? :)
>
> Yeah, but Tux 2 is still faster on the same/similar hardware
Yeps. But there was no access time update turned off in its case. MS do this.
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00075.html
--
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine
----------------------------------
E-Mail: [email protected]
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
>
> Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
> their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
> specweb dyanmic stuff in x86 assembly in their microkernel? :)
SWC = Scaleable Web Cache
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/iis/swc2.asp has more information about
SWC 2.0. Microsoft published SpecWeb96 results for IIS+SWC 2.0, but not
for SpecWeb99. I would guess that SWC 2.0 didn't help performance for
dynamic content.
Looks like they fixed this with SWC 3.0.
Walter
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
>
> Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
> their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
> specweb dyanmic stuff in x86 assembly in their microkernel? :)
One might say they cheated, both by using much faster
disks and more of them, and "supercharging" their web
server by putting a web cache in front of iis. Even so,
they couldn't quite catch up to Tux.
jjs
Paul Flinders <[email protected]> writes:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> >
> > Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
> > their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
> > specweb dyanmic stuff in x86 assembly in their microkernel? :)
>
> Yeah, but Tux 2 is still faster on the same/similar hardware
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00075.html
Well, if you look closely, the Tux 2 system had an extra GigE card and
5 9GB 10KRPM drives instead of 1 9GB 10KRPM drive plus 8 16GB 15KRPM
drives under IIS, so the hardware wasn't exactly the same for both.
Perhaps more telling is that in both cases the "Conforming
Simultaneous Connections" was the same as the "Requested Connections"
-- suggesting that neither TUX 2.0 nor IIS were pushed to the breaking
point in the tests.
Before gloating about holding the highest performance, compare with
Zeus running on a (much beefier) IBM eServer:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20001225-00092.html
(And of course the normal disclaimers apply about how little benchmark
results reflect what "average" commercial deployments see.)
-- Michael