Re: WebTEN vs webSTARtopic

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1998


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 18917
interpreted = N
texte = >Any comments about the recent press stating that WebTEN trounces WebSTAR >even at low volumes? > >I am using WebSTAR 3.0.... Should I sidegrade to WebTEN? > >http://www4.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/webserver98/bench.html > >http://macweek.zdnet.com/ns-search/1223/rv_web.html?NS-search-set=/35ad1/aaa >a000oqad1f5a&NS-docset=0& > Ahh but wait.. this is from todays firestite digest. Webstar with the new nitro plug-in, if you read this carefully jumps all over webten when using OT, but as the report says, they are not done yet. And most of the magazine type articles are not doing real world testing. Not having read the above articles, but most I have read do not test over dial up but over a 10-T lan...not real world to me.And we've got two Tenon/WebTen- related notes:First, it took a while to get the relative importance of the various server performance parameters across to Tenon - they've been crowing about Hits/Sec for a while now, and they weren't completely on top of issues like bandwidth, saturation, latency, or CPU load. But we spent a good amount of time with them and hopefully we'll see them start to talk about the other performance parameters and benefits of WebTen (and not keep getting stuck on Hits/Sec).Second, we've been developing a new server testing/tuning tool that shows lot more detailed information about the performance characteristics of the server being tested and we're finding some interesting things.The big surprise (kind of) was that when both WebSTAR and WebTen are running under OpenTransport 1.3 (level playing field), WebSTAR is appreciably faster then WebTen. And with NITRO 2.0b1 installed, WebSTAR was about _twice_ as fast as WebTen for plain binary file hits.And switching to the Tenon TCP/IP stack speeds up _both_ servers. WebTen gets more of a speed-up than WebSTAR with the Tenon stack, probably because of the low-level coupling of the Tenon ethernet driver and the WebTen engine. (And don't ask how we made WebSTAR use the Tenon TCP stack - it wasn't pretty and I wouldn't recommend it - but it DID make WebSTAR respond faster, which was interesting.)To me, this is more data that suggests that OpenTransport 2.0 will close the 'binary file hits per second' gap.We're going to try some testing of standardized SSI pages, too, which will eliminate any skew caused by low-level caching done by WebTen in the Tenon ethernet driver.We'll publish everything (including the test tool!) when we're sure that everything is solid, reproducable, and realistic. I think what we'll ultimately see is that WebTen isn't quite as fast a 'server engine' as WebSTAR, but that the Tenon TCP stack more than makes up the difference. And OpenTransport 2.0 will be an interesting ingredient to add to _either_ server! So, FireSite + WebTen is under technical investigation on both sides, and we'll keep you posted.- -Mark =============================================== Gary Richter PanaVise Products, Inc. 7540 Colbert Dr. Reno, Nevada 89511 Ph: 702.850.2900 Fx: 702.850.2929 Email: grichter@panavise.com http://www.panavise.com =============================================== Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: WebTEN vs webSTARtopic (Rob Marquardt 1998)
  2. Re: WebTEN vs webSTARtopic (Gary Richter 1998)
>Any comments about the recent press stating that WebTEN trounces WebSTAR >even at low volumes? > >I am using WebSTAR 3.0.... Should I sidegrade to WebTEN? > >http://www4.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/webserver98/bench.html > >http://macweek.zdnet.com/ns-search/1223/rv_web.html?NS-search-set=/35ad1/aaa >a000oqad1f5a&NS-docset=0& > Ahh but wait.. this is from todays firestite digest. Webstar with the new nitro plug-in, if you read this carefully jumps all over webten when using OT, but as the report says, they are not done yet. And most of the magazine type articles are not doing real world testing. Not having read the above articles, but most I have read do not test over dial up but over a 10-T lan...not real world to me.And we've got two Tenon/WebTen- related notes:First, it took a while to get the relative importance of the various server performance parameters across to Tenon - they've been crowing about Hits/Sec for a while now, and they weren't completely on top of issues like bandwidth, saturation, latency, or CPU load. But we spent a good amount of time with them and hopefully we'll see them start to talk about the other performance parameters and benefits of WebTen (and not keep getting stuck on Hits/Sec).Second, we've been developing a new server testing/tuning tool that shows lot more detailed information about the performance characteristics of the server being tested and we're finding some interesting things.The big surprise (kind of) was that when both WebSTAR and WebTen are running under OpenTransport 1.3 (level playing field), WebSTAR is appreciably faster then WebTen. And with NITRO 2.0b1 installed, WebSTAR was about _twice_ as fast as WebTen for plain binary file hits.And switching to the Tenon TCP/IP stack speeds up _both_ servers. WebTen gets more of a speed-up than WebSTAR with the Tenon stack, probably because of the low-level coupling of the Tenon ethernet driver and the WebTen engine. (And don't ask how we made WebSTAR use the Tenon TCP stack - it wasn't pretty and I wouldn't recommend it - but it DID make WebSTAR respond faster, which was interesting.)To me, this is more data that suggests that OpenTransport 2.0 will close the 'binary file hits per second' gap.We're going to try some testing of standardized SSI pages, too, which will eliminate any skew caused by low-level caching done by WebTen in the Tenon ethernet driver.We'll publish everything (including the test tool!) when we're sure that everything is solid, reproducable, and realistic. I think what we'll ultimately see is that WebTen isn't quite as fast a 'server engine' as WebSTAR, but that the Tenon TCP stack more than makes up the difference. And OpenTransport 2.0 will be an interesting ingredient to add to _either_ server! So, FireSite + WebTen is under technical investigation on both sides, and we'll keep you posted.- -Mark =============================================== Gary Richter PanaVise Products, Inc. 7540 Colbert Dr. Reno, Nevada 89511 Ph: 702.850.2900 Fx: 702.850.2929 Email: grichter@panavise.com http://www.panavise.com =============================================== Gary Richter

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

[WebDNA] [OT] hello (2012) Letters as SKU (1998) RE: type 2 errors with ssl server (1997) Possible Bug in 2.0b15.acgi (1997) Shorthand for command args (1998) Can you set [index]=end+1 for [break]? (1998) This message couldn't reach the list! (multi-column (1998) Enhanced Master Counter? (1997) Am on the list? (1997) Nested search (1997) WebCatalog Technical Reference (1997) [append] and SSL (1997) price totals (2003) webdna dreamweaver extension. (2003) webmerch and serials - almost there (1997) Associative lookup style? + bit more (1997) I give up!! (1997) Re1000001: Setting up shop (1997) calculating tax rates, mail order solutions and version 2 (1997) Plugin or CGI or both (1997)