Re: PHP/Linux v.s. PHP/Windows

"Bruin, Bolke de" wrote:Is linux a 'better' OS than Windows? Depends on what you're > using it for. For web serving, Windows and IIS have > proven to be very good servers. Mhz for Mhz, you generally > get better performance from Windows than Linux. > > It seems as if you don't now what you are talking about or you > have at least very little experience with it. IIS is only faster > regarding *static* html, because some of it is part of the NT kernel. > Apache has never been made for speed, but for reliability en > configurability. > But when you start using dynamic-generated pages (such as PHP) then > Apache's strengths start to show off. What strengths? I use it all the time, so I know most of the arguments you'll make. Hey, you're preaching to the choir here! But to simply say that Apache's strengths make it better than NT is shortsighted. If Apache's strengths were so strong, why would they be changing the fundamental approach to Apache (multiprocess v. multithreading)? There's obviously more performance gains to be had - it's already more easily configurable and administratable (so the story goes) - the only reason left for changing the model would be speed. > > For static pages, just wait for TUX (http://www.redhat.com/tux) to > stabalize then you will get 5 times > (http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/) > the speed of IIS 5.0/NT 2000. > I dare say I do know what I'm talking about. As far as my clients are concerned, you're pushing, if not vaporware, at least something that's not out yet. TUX has nothing to do with the strengths of Apache. Whenever clients of mine start saying 'but MS is going to have a better product out next year for todays' problems!' I tell them what I'm telling you - we need answers today, not cutting edge beta stuff not available to the average user. As much as I love PHP on Linux, compare *optimally* written NT/ASP stuff vs. *optimally* written PHP on Linux stuff. The ASP will still, in most cases, have a slight edge. It has caching built in - until you're using the Zend cache (again, not *out* yet, and not affordable to most people when it will be, apparently) you can't compete. *I* posted numbers here a few months ago comparing IIS/ASP vs. PHP/Linux. While I won't retract those numbers, I've learned a lot more about optimizing both platforms in the past 6 months or so, and although I stand by PHP/Linux as still 'better' for what we need all around (configuration, ease of use, etc.) NT/ASP *can* be darn fast. > > O and just as a side note you ever tried to use IIS 5.0 NT 2000 on a 386? > You can with apache, > dont say it is fast, but just for the Mhz/Mhz comparison. > OK - this is something that does bother me about one of the Linux mantras. It's fine that you can run something on a 386 - excellent. You couldn't run a high-level ebusiness site that does any serious amount of traffic on it. Go run your 386 as a file server, or DNS machine, or something. But it doesn't have the power to run the types of projects that we engage in, regardless of the operating system, not unless we load balanced over 50 of them. None of the clients we deal with would run their core business on 386s as a web server - again, not NT or Linux or BSD or anything else. It would be difficult to even go to a store and *buy* one today. For $500, you'd get a PII 500mhz or something - if you're going to compare OSs, compare them on *average* equipment of the day, not relatively ancient machines. > > $ for $, > you generally get better value from Linux than Windows. > All imo, of course. For us, the somewhat better performance > of Windows has to be balanced against the extra > work of remote administration and other factors, leaning us towards > recommending Linux in most cases for the types of clients we deal > with. Doesn't mean Windows is always wrong. > > Notice I'm not even bringing solaris into this whole equation - > there's a lot more out there than NT/Linux - and a whole > range of factors you need to decide on before you claim something > as 'better'. > > That is defenitely true, if everyone had the money (and the sense) everyone > would be running Alpha's/SGI stations. > Most likely, but $ is a factor. $ is the factor that seems to drive most people to Linux, but unless you've got the $ to invest in decent hardware, networking, administration, etc., you'll won't get the most out of it - again, this goes for Windows and Linux and anything else. > > Chronos wrote: > > > Why would you even bother with NT if Linux is a better OS?? See what you started Chronos? ;) -- ========================== Michael Kimsal http://www.tapinternet.com 734-480-9961