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

Michael Kimsal wrote: > "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. true, apache was never aimed to be fast when they started coding it, they wanted something that could take a beating and still be stable. add to that that you can configure almost anything in apache, whilst i havent used iis for a LONG time, the last time i used it apache had much more tweaks etc that could be played with than iis. > > > > > 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. yes and so can perl in mod_perl and so can many other languages, any highly optimized code in almost any language is good. while the cache engine is not out yet, or nor the compiler for that matter. php is still FAST even without these, it is at a comparable speed with nt/asp. according to one interview (lost url) the compiler is supposed to make php faster and then the cache will make it faster yet again. now, you tell me, microsoft has already implimented the cache system and php holds up to it speed wise . . . > > > > > 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. true, but it allows people to run it on whatever they have, be it a p60 thru to a quad xeon or an alpha box > > > > > $ 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. true, good unix admins are much harder to find and generally more expensive than good windows admin's, but most say that the money you spend on a unix admin roughly covers your nt licensing. > > > > > 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 > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-general-unsubscribe@lists.php.net > For additional commands, e-mail: php-general-help@lists.php.net > To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net