Red Hat/Apache Slower Than Windows Server 2003? 628
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."
Three hundred percent? (Score:2, Insightful)
"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what did the test CGI with? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why did they bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Apache/Linux the "end-all-be-all, there is nothing that can be better so let's stop trying" type of quality?
Are the guys who work at Microsoft a bunch of idiots that anyone can out-program?
I'm sure IIS is better at some things, maybe more things, maybe less.
Who cares! I don't think stats like these are why anyone chooses Apache/Linux over IIS/Windows.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wish, just ONCE that somebody would do a fair evaluation, without an agenda to forward. But I guess that'll never happen. We all have bias...but surely we could at least attempt to get above that?
Re:One question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
sure there's a chance I'm wrong, but for me weighing the CHANCE of better performance from Windows against the CERTAINTY that they have lied about their product (or been completely incompetant) is a no-brainer.
and that's not considering costs (remember guys, using linux always requires an old, slow mainframe to be factored into the TOC!)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
I've reached the point where I completely ignore all the studies and benchmarks like this, from both sides. It is, quite simply, far too easy to set the constraints and metrics up so as to make sure you come out ahead. What's worse, it has become absolutely standard practice to do so. Studies have become completely useless because you can guarantee that they've been cooked one way or another.
Jedidiah.
Re:Let's be reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ahem... from the Article (Score:2, Insightful)
I think they realized that the CXOs and other execs who make the big decisions never read the fine print anyway; and such disclaimers will never make the headline or a large-font pull-quote in any such marketing literature, so there's no harm in being up-front about it.
Even fake grass-roots efforts [slashdot.org] (astroturfing) can be done openly these days.
Oh, and to get on the Team99-bloggers-good side, I just wanted to say that Longhorn is so stunningly awesomely good that Microsoft won't have to resort to this kind of silly FUD once longhorn is released.
What about Norton? (Score:3, Insightful)
This bull reminds me of those advertisements for weight loss.
BEFORE................AFTER
Stick stomach out....Suck stomach in
White......................Tanned
No cosmetics..........New facial
Front shot...............Side shot
Grubby clothes........New fashions
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been in IT for about 17 years. I've seen MS destroy "the little guy" time and time again, with thier power and yet with all that power, money and developer base, deliver garbage year after year, to this day.
Then I compare them with offerings like Mac OS X, the BSD's and Linux and wonder, how on Earth someone can say, "I like Microsoft".
Seriously now, what is there to like about them?
Let's settle this for once and for all (Score:5, Insightful)
People keep saying, 'When are we going to get a real benchmark?" Well, why don't we roll our own? Seriously.
Here's my idea:
Slashdot has strong zealot^H^H^H^H^H^Hsupporters for both Microsoft and Linux. Let's have a contest to select the best qualified from each side, have them work in teams on identical hardware. Let them make any changes, tweaks or optimisations they can dream up. Then, let 'em rip.
I'm dead serious about this, by the way. Let's get off this endless roundabout and for once make a clear comparison.
For bonus points, once the first contest is finished, we should take the two servers, leave them exposed to the Internet and see which one gets 0wned first. 8^)
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
The only benchmark by MS which I might trust is one saying Windows is slower and/or worse than Linux. Somehow, I never saw any of those.
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:2, Insightful)
May not be FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
1)ASP (not ASPX) are fairly flaky and recent versions are roughly comparable to, but slower than, PHP4 (not sure about 5), in general.
2) Windows is not very good at creating new processes quickly. This is why CGI (not fastCGI) in the platform is so glacially slow.
Let's have an example. Let's say that you make a dynamic webpage in which all content is generated by a C++ CGI program. Ignoring database access for the time being, since that dilutes the example, on Windows, the website would be MUCH slower than the same website written in ASPX, even though the actual execution time of the C++ program is shorter (assuming a competent C++ coder).
This is because for each request, Windows must create a new process (the CGI program), and destroy the process when the request is complete.
While the execution time is low, the process management overhead dwarfs the actual page runtime, because Windows doesn't do that sort of thing quickly. This is why CGI has long been blacklistedon Windows systems by good web devs, and this is one reason that Apache 1.x was such a dog on Windows. Apache 1.x creates a new Apache process for each request.
Now Linux, on the other hand, creates processes about as fast as it creates threads, which is to say, really damn fast. Apache 1 has always worked just fine on Linux (and indeed most Unix systems) because the overhead of creating a process, while significant, isn't slower than a dead slug stuck in frozen molasses like it is on Windows.
Apache 2.x allows requests to be served by a thread or a process, or a number of processes that each create several threads (any Apache gurus please correct me if any of this is off).
It follows that this isn't a big deal on Linux (because process creation isn't really much slower than thread creation), but is a very big deal on Windows.
Windows has ASPX, which is Microsoft's marketing term for the use of the
Yet Apache is still back here creating a process or thread for each and every request (note that there are some ways to speed things up. FastCGI comes to mind, but I don't want to get into the gory details that I don't know enough about). This is not the brightest way to do it in terms of performance, but then, Apache appears to have been designed for universality and configurability over raw throughput.
It is unwise to hold the attitude that Apache can't be beaten by IIS, especially when IIS is optimized for one platform--by the vendor of that platform. Apache isn't even the fastest on Linux. Take a look at Zeus [zeus.com] webserver. It serves circles around Apache on any platform it supports--including Penguin land.
In fact, Zeus uses a technique called SendFile() which, oddly enough [storagereview.net], is strikingly similar Microsoft's own TransmitFile() API. Hmm.
Think of it this way: Apache is to IIS as GCC is to ICC, at least in terms of performance and generality.
Intel's compiler (ICC) consistantly blows away GCC in terms of the performance and size of the compiled code, but GCC runs on just about anything with a CPU, can cross-compile, is free, doesn't pull any PHB evil tricks [theinquirer.net], and actually compiles things like the Linux kernel without pat
Stop whining and help speed up Apache! (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone publishes a benchmark about your software, and finds out your software does not perform well, don't whine, don't behave like a child, don't start kicking and screaming, don't tear his hair out. Behave professionally.
Good starting points:
Let me summarize what I think about their test. First of all, I believe their numbers. Apache sucks performance-wise, in particular if you run a busy site with dynamic content. That's why people are using squid in local accelerator mode before Apache. This is a good indication that some performance tuning is in order. But no, people rather wait for Microsoft to find out and then they start thinking about fixing it.
If this test was meant to be unfair FUD, they would not have tested TUX, just Apache.
But now to my questions above:
Question 1: is their setup relevant?
No. Sites who answer more than 5000 requests per second are not using a single web server, they are using a load balancer and a cluster.
Question 2: Can their numbers possibly be true?
The point I find least believable is that IIS had better CGI performance than Apache. Creating a process is really slow on Windows. Their result should be independently verified.
Question 3: What weak spots about the competition does their test reveal?
They did not test a single-CPU webserver (which is what almost everyone is using).
They did not test FastCGI or APAPI dynamic web pages.
So if we wanted to do a more balanced review, we would look at these.
Question 4: What can we do to improve the results.
Document APAPI better, I'd say. Almost nobody is writing their dynamic web page modules with APAPI.
Everyone is using PHP or mod_perl. Benchmark Apache in real-world scenarios. Document best practices.
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Rejuvenate" means "renew, appear to grow younger". Did you mean "become jubilant"?
I don't become jubilant when anybody's security flaw is exposed. In the case of Open Source apps, patches are generally available in a couple of days.
> 2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.
No, just the ones that misstate the facts or are attempts at FUD.
> 3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.
Um, Linux supports all my hardware just great.
> 4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.
> I run Linux, Windows, and Solaris machines. I use OpenOffice.org and so have no need for Microsoft Office. But if I did, I could run it using WINE, which I can get for free. Unlike MS Office.
> 5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.
I use Linux *professionally* on the desktop.
> 6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?
Sounds like there's a need for some consciousness-raising, then. Alothugh I've noticed that more and more people -- even Joe Sixpack types -- don't go glassy-eyed when Linux is mentioned these days.
> 7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
I don't have any problems printing from Linux.
> 8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts, and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
Well, it did take me about 30 seconds to learn how to type "./configure - make - make install - make clean". Or if I'm feeling lazy, I can just double-click an RPM file icon in Konqueror.
> 9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.
Sorry, mate, you're talking to someone who does just that for a living.
> 10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.
I honestly don't know about that. But I do know that lots of movies' special effects are being generated these days using Linux-powered render farms.
> 11. You cannot admit that linux sucks when it comes for gaming/home entertainment or education.
There are tonnes of educational apps available for Linux -- many of them come with commercial distros. There are still more on the Net. As for games -- if I want to play games, I'll buy an X-Box.
> 12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.
Over the years, I've used and administered Windows 3.1/95/98/Me/2000 and have no problems doing so. But after just 6 months, I can install, configure, and administer a Linux machine faster and more reliably.
> 13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.
Pointing and clicking has its place. But there are lots of things that are actually easier via a command line. For instance, I'd much rather run a MySQL server that way than use the GUI tools. Nice thing about Linux and Open Source apps in general is that you've a choice in the matter. If you don't like the command line, don't use the bloody thing.
> 14. Nothing will get past that shit that fills your head, you will not admit to any facts.
Can't respond to an assertion that's semantically nil, sorry.
> 15. Yo
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is new? (Score:2, Insightful)
The paper is hilarious if you actually read it.
Key points...
They looked for tips on optimising Apache on the Redhat website ?!(guys next time try httpd.apache.org).
They found that Apache 2 was 50% faster than Apache 1 (without any tuning, Apache 2 offers a selection of threading models so a fair comparion would have tried each in turn, with or without tuning), so presumably didn't do any further tests with that in case it made MS look bad.
They tuned Windows for the server but effectively plead ignorance of how to tune Redhat for the server.
My guess is even then, on this hardware, sensible tuning of the kind they did to Windows would have made Apache comparable or better.
There were issues with this hardware selection at the time. Driving Gigabit ethernet is pretty demanding stuff, and you need drivers that can handle interrupt load.
However anyone who actually needs an 8 CPU machine to serve gigabit websites will probably do their own benchmarking and tuning, in the unlikely event their application software gives them a free choice of platform.
When my employers online business is big enough to need gigabit hosting, we'll probably still have SQUID on Linux with shed loads of memory accelerating the static content, because hardware is cheaper than rewriting the corporate applications.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:2, Insightful)
-invite MS and RH (or other) for the contest, but ask what software versions to buy off the shelf and what to install. Install it yourself and have them tweak it with the configuration, without having extra's installed.
-Let them agree between each other on as many things as possible: hardware, time to tweak, do's and don'ts, type of tests
-Compile several benchmark tests: load, response time, static, dynamic. Ofcourse all on the same type of hardware platform.
-Run the tests with them witnessing and report here!
One note: Make sure to get the experts on both sides. At MS not a problem, but the linux arena is much bigger.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Apache is the right server for static pages and simple CGIs though. It has so many modules and settings that the code path from filesystem to socket has to be much longer than necessary and longer than the feature-limited competition. They should try a simple server like Boa.
Re:Let's be reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Use identical hardware...
2. Use the default un-optimized settings...
3. Hand tune using experts on the software under test...
4. Rerun the identical tests...
5. Ensure that clients used to test server software are identically configured.
That would be being reasonable...
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardware support maybe more complete on the x86 platform but that's it. Linux has far superior hardware support over all.
would like to see more effort towards binary compatability in the kernel to support binary drivers a bit more consistantly though.
There is a reason that binary compatibility doesn't exist in proprietary drivers. Linux is a free system and was never intended to support 3rd party, proprietary drivers.
IMHO BSD is probably a better OS option than Linux is in a lot of ways (free/open/net)... though linux has the fame, glory, and fanatic following. I like windows, I use windows...
I see this posted all the time but It just leads me to beleive the poster has never used Linux or BSD. It seems like people are using this line to try and ward of criticism by saying "look, I like free software, just not Linux", or "I like Unix, just not Linux".
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Any other options will mean no study and no money.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The red flag (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to load any of those modules if you don't want to. Thereby simplifying the code path...
That's why they choose to make them modules rather than baking them into the application itself.
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:1, Insightful)
In my own experience, there's also a big difference based on the usage. For example, my servers almost never go down unless there's a power outage (no matter which OS they're running). Desktops tend to have more stability problems (mainly with video-intensive stuff like games, where a dodgy video driver can cause no end of problems), and laptops have all the problems of desktops, plus more power-management issues. Overall, I help friends troubleshoot Windows crashes from time to time, and they're invariably caused by dodgy, unsigned device drivers (usually for hardware that doesn't work at all under any other OS), not bugs or flaws in the OS itself. (For the uninformed, a dodgy driver will crash UNIX, Linux or BSD just as easily as Windows.)
There are plenty of good things about a lot of other Microsoft software, like Word and Excel. I used to be somewhat hostile towards Microsoft (because of my UNIX background), but despite my best efforts, I could never find a spreadsheet competitive with Excel. I still prefer typesetting tools common on UNIX to Word, but the fact that copy/paste works pretty well on Windows is a huge benefit.
These days, I generally just use what best gets the job done (ie I'm not inherently pro- or anti- anything), and that means I mostly use MS Windows and MS Office for day-to-day work, and MS
At the end of the day, Microsoft software is just like any other: it has strengths and weaknesses. In some cases, it's the best tool for the job, and in others it isn't. Anyone who can't see that must have either (a) very limited experience, or (b) an irrational bias against Microsoft.
Identical budgets, not hardware hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, we want to count TCO and performance, right?
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if the automobile industry did it?
-b
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people would say "if you don't like that, don't use MS spanners". Fine. Done deal! :)
Just a little way down the metaphorical road, there's a shop that sells spanners at a fraction of the price that MS does. They may not be as pretty, and for some jobs they aren't quite as exact - but they've been getting better for years and the difference is scarcely noticeable these days. And if you can do without the fancy packaging, you can go online and get that same tool free..
And it's then yours to use legally, wherever and however you wish - so long as you don't try and claim you designed it.
So the question is: by what criteria do you evaluate best? None free software, security holes, forced upgrades... with many people these things carry a hefty negative.
Does the test setup matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to applaud the way you take a positive stance and look at how apache can be improved. I expect efforts in that direction form an ongoing part of apache development, but the positive attitude is appreciated. It's just a bit sad that your post reads as an endorsemnt of a blatant piece of paid-for propaganda
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so. If it were, there would be far less support for Open Source projects. Fortunately, as FOSS has demonstrated, large numbers of human beings are quite capable of being motivated by interesting problems and the knowledge that thier work will benefit everyone else.
Be cynical if you like, but every day you use Linux or Open Office; every day you see a website served by Apache; know that it's because some people value contribution to society enough to donate their time and creative energies.
not identical servers, identical BUDGETS (Score:3, Insightful)
The budget has to buy software, hardware and setup labor.
This eliminates the problem of "that hardware favors Microsoft" or "that team had better engineers". It all comes down to money and value.
Of course the competition would need to state up front exactly how performance would be measured and how the various different tasks (static pages, cgi, etc.) would be weighted to come up with any overall scores. That would dictate the design choices made by each team.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever hear of a non-disclosure agreement? Are those 'unconstitutional' in your fairyland world too?
The US Constitution only affects dealings between the government and private citizens, it has nothing to do with dealings between two private citizens. But then again, this is Slashdot. Carry on with your groundless bitching.
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As someone who tunes web servers... (Score:0, Insightful)
As to the Microsoft sponsored benchmark, Im not 100% convinced that if you pay for a benchmark its going to be biased, unless you black-mail the company doing the benchmark, I would like to think that the company holding the benchmark would be lookin out for there name also, and not skew results to make them look bad.
But thats what I would like to think, to much past with how microsoft has handled these things, but of course microsoft isnt the only one guilty of this, intel is just as guilty as well as AMD, Nvidia, ATI, etc.
If you had a business would you like your benchmarks skewed a bit to benefit your company? I'm not sure if I would or not, money is tempting but technology doesnt advance for money it advances for competition.