Red Hat/Apache Slower Than Windows Server 2003?

phantomfive writes "In a recent test by a company called Veritest, Windows 2003 web server performs up to 300% higher throughput than Red Hat Linux running with Apache. Veritest used webbench to do there testing. Since the test was commisioned by Microsoft, is this just more FUD from a company with a long history? Or are the results valid this time? The study can be found here."

IIS is always faster.

[Bug-Y2K]

Faster to get infected.
Faster to get rooted.
Faster to get used as a warez server.

Nothing new here.

Swings and roundabouts

[ricky-road-flats]

So does that make SMS on Windows faster than morse code on Linux?

One question...

[guaigean]

I wonder if Bill Gates actually believes his own bullshit...

Re:IIS is always faster.

[vcv]

I assume you've never used IIS 6.0 which has been out for 2 years. Very very secure, easily arguable moreso than apache.

But why would you believe that? I mean it's not like it's easy to find out..

Re:Just like the samba benchmark

[eric76]

Using the same logic, my old '64 International Harvester pickup could be shown to be faster than a Formula 1 race car.

I have the ideal road for the test in mind.

Now all I need is for someone to loan me a Formula 1 race car for the test.

And now, ladies and gentlemen...

[Spy der Mann]

I'll test the amazing Linux versus the ultra-slow windows NT.

Config:
Linux: Latest Redhat running on Opteron 4GHz
Windows: Windows 3.1 running on a Pentium 100.

And the winner is...?[/sarcasm]

To para(dy)-phrase

[FidelCatsro]

Windows 2003 server running on skynet is 300% Faster than Ye-oldie redhat -12 edition from 1723 running on an abacus.
This reliable Expensive test paid for by Microsoft to show how much better windows 2003 server is(the payment came with a clause stating such).

Yester-year's News Today!

[Percy_Blakeney]

Not only does the linked page say it was published in mid-2004, but the study itself is from early 2003. How does this qualify as a 'recent' study? Just because someone read it for the first time today doesn't mean it was created today...

Sheesh -- with such outdated news, I almost felt like I was reading the newspaper or something.

Re:Easy

[Trejkaz]

Nope, IIS is naturally slow and unable to be tweaked at all. :-)

Re:Three hundred percent?

[menkhaura]

Four words:

Well paid microsoft employee.

Re:Just like the samba benchmark

[Joel Carr]

Now all I need is for someone to loan me a Formula 1 race car for the test.

Well BAR Honda have a couple they won't be needing for a few weeks [formula1.com]... Perhaps you should ask them. ;-)

I like it.

[hey!]

Kind of like the ultimate fighting championship -- no holds barred compentition between alpha geeks to see who can webbench more.

Of course this is completely irrelevant to real world usage scenarios. What we need is another data point from the other end of the spectrum. It can be like one of those reality shows. You rope four teams of ordinary folk right of the street, hand each team identical base (no OS) servers, only each team gets a different operating system :Windows, RHEL, FreeBSD and MacOS (Of course, the Mac group will have to work with the closest apprixmation we can manage to the x86 box going by paper specs). Their task will be to build an ecommerce site and successfully run it without getting hacked for four successive weeks, armed only the documentation provided with the operating system.

We can call it SURV1V0R.

Got it here...

[Anonymous Coward]

#!/bin/bash

echo "Content-type: text/html"
echo

sleep 300

echo "CGI script complete"

Re:Just like the samba benchmark

[Glonoinha]

Just put up two professional servers, fill em with some nudie-pix and post the links to FARK at the same time. That's about the most intense benchmark known to man.

Re:Let's settle this for once and for all

[khujifig]

And then submit the results of the test to slashdot, linking to each machine, and see which dies first?