Re: How fast is your server?
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2002
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 41867
interpreted = N
texte = Hehe - that reminds me of something I saw on TV once and taking into account Micro$ofts usual tactics - it wouldn't surprise me if they tried it on.They reckon that in the states on the some of the TV broadcasters channels, the stations cut a few frames per second out of the Television shows so that, on average, 30 mins of actual footage runs for 27 mins in real time. This gives them 6-7 minutes more advertising time per hour...I'm sure if your warranty, support or software licencing was based on time, Micro$oft would have implemented this methodology long ago.Oh wait - they are based on time...On 24/7/02 12:38 PM, Aaron Lynch
wrote:> On 7/23/02 2:14 PM, Andrew Simpson mashed the following keys : > >> Its a fair enough comment that the two platforms may not account for a >> 'tick' in the same way but the fact remains that the PC is visibly faster >> than the Mac. Its something that can be measured by counting in your head... > > Yeah, but again, the PC is 3.4x the clockspeed of the Mac and completed the > task 2.6x as fast. (if the ticks were even) > > The 533DP's strength is the fact that it has dual procs, which this test > harldy accounts for... > > I would certainly expect this result, but when you have 30 simultanious > connections hitting apache, webcatalog and whatever else (communigate?) > I would expect the difference to be lower still. > > The debate rages on :) > > I would love to see a 1gig xserve and a 1 or 2 ghz pentium do the test. > Especially a dual, dual. > > In a week or so we should have our xserve, so we have that long to devise a > more betterer, thorough-ish test, that displays the result in seconds... I > second is still more or less a second on a pc, isn't it? > > > >> >> I love mac's but I also love money and seen as how here in new zealand you >> can buy 6 PC's for the price of an Xserve, the Xserve is already at a big >> disadvantage. >> >> I would be interested in a proper test also as Aaron has sugested. >> >> I will try and device some better coding challenges to test later on >> tonight... >> >> Unless smith micro has something it can share? >> >> On 24/7/02 1:27 AM, John Peacock wrote: >> >>> Andrew Simpson wrote: >>>> >>>> The PC completed this task in 243 ticks while the mac took 637 ticks. >>> >>> Ticks on PC != Ticks on Mac >>> >>> The underlying operating system measures time in different ways; I believe >>> on >>> the Mac, a tick is 1/8 of a second, whereas on a PC it is 100 milliseconds >>> (0.1 >>> second). So you are not measuring the same thing. >>> >>> That being said, the disk processing time of writing 20000 times to a file >>> is >>> likely going to swamp any other variable (milliseconds vs nanoseconds). It >>> will >>> vary by O/S (classic Mac is not tuned as a server O/S), RAM, disk subsystem >>> (caching controller), and disk geometry itself. I don't think this test can >>> measure anything useful, unless you use the same box and vary some of the >>> parameters (add RAM, use a caching controller, use a 10k disk drive). >>> >>> John > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/-- Andrew Simpson Web DevelopmentBlackpepper Interactive Ltd PO Box 99805 Newmarket4 Clayton Street Newmarket AucklandPh: +64 9 520-6281 Mob: 0272733270 Fax: +64 9 524-1849http://www.blackpepper.co.nz------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Hehe - that reminds me of something I saw on TV once and taking into account Micro$ofts usual tactics - it wouldn't surprise me if they tried it on.They reckon that in the states on the some of the TV broadcasters channels, the stations cut a few frames per second out of the Television shows so that, on average, 30 mins of actual footage runs for 27 mins in real time. This gives them 6-7 minutes more advertising time per hour...I'm sure if your warranty, support or software licencing was based on time, Micro$oft would have implemented this methodology long ago.Oh wait - they are based on time...On 24/7/02 12:38 PM, Aaron Lynch wrote:> On 7/23/02 2:14 PM, Andrew Simpson mashed the following keys : > >> Its a fair enough comment that the two platforms may not account for a >> 'tick' in the same way but the fact remains that the PC is visibly faster >> than the Mac. Its something that can be measured by counting in your head... > > Yeah, but again, the PC is 3.4x the clockspeed of the Mac and completed the > task 2.6x as fast. (if the ticks were even) > > The 533DP's strength is the fact that it has dual procs, which this test > harldy accounts for... > > I would certainly expect this result, but when you have 30 simultanious > connections hitting apache, webcatalog and whatever else (communigate?) > I would expect the difference to be lower still. > > The debate rages on :) > > I would love to see a 1gig xserve and a 1 or 2 ghz pentium do the test. > Especially a dual, dual. > > In a week or so we should have our xserve, so we have that long to devise a > more betterer, thorough-ish test, that displays the result in seconds... I > second is still more or less a second on a pc, isn't it? > > > >> >> I love mac's but I also love money and seen as how here in new zealand you >> can buy 6 PC's for the price of an Xserve, the Xserve is already at a big >> disadvantage. >> >> I would be interested in a proper test also as Aaron has sugested. >> >> I will try and device some better coding challenges to test later on >> tonight... >> >> Unless smith micro has something it can share? >> >> On 24/7/02 1:27 AM, John Peacock wrote: >> >>> Andrew Simpson wrote: >>>> >>>> The PC completed this task in 243 ticks while the mac took 637 ticks. >>> >>> Ticks on PC != Ticks on Mac >>> >>> The underlying operating system measures time in different ways; I believe >>> on >>> the Mac, a tick is 1/8 of a second, whereas on a PC it is 100 milliseconds >>> (0.1 >>> second). So you are not measuring the same thing. >>> >>> That being said, the disk processing time of writing 20000 times to a file >>> is >>> likely going to swamp any other variable (milliseconds vs nanoseconds). It >>> will >>> vary by O/S (classic Mac is not tuned as a server O/S), RAM, disk subsystem >>> (caching controller), and disk geometry itself. I don't think this test can >>> measure anything useful, unless you use the same box and vary some of the >>> parameters (add RAM, use a caching controller, use a 10k disk drive). >>> >>> John > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/-- Andrew Simpson Web DevelopmentBlackpepper Interactive Ltd PO Box 99805 Newmarket4 Clayton Street Newmarket AucklandPh: +64 9 520-6281 Mob: 0272733270 Fax: +64 9 524-1849http://www.blackpepper.co.nz------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Andrew Simpson
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:
Old Topic - [OT] - server speeds. (2002)
eMailer replacement? (1998)
Re:Help name our technology! (1997)
Need relative path explanation (1997)
Header Problems (1998)
Other Databases, access, filemaker etc. (2000)
Another webcatalog site!! (1997)
PCS Customer submissions ? (1997)
Webcat Security (1998)
New Site Announcement (1998)
[ListFiles] Within [LineItems] (2001)
RE: Netscape v. IE (1997)
Credit Card not accepted (1998)
Multiple Pulldowns (1997)
searchable list archive (1997)
[WebDNA] behavior of [thisurl] in the context of 'mod_rewrite' (2012)
2cd pair of eyes please. (2003)
DON'T use old cart file! (1997)
Re[2]: Next X hits (1996)
Secure server question (1997)