[ale] (Fwd) Re: Web platform solutions comparison
Daniel Boyd
dboyd at berry.edu
Fri Aug 1 18:20:02 EDT 1997
Enclosed is a response from the author and test manager for the
Apache/Linux/WGS test from a few days ago. She explains why and for
what reasons the Linux server was configured and why the support
costs were determined to be very high for the platform. To jog the
memory, Infoworld did a comparison with MP "mission critical"
WWW servers from IBM, Netscape, etc along with the Linux solution.
FYI
Dan
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: "Laura Wonnacott"<Laura_Wonnacott at infoworld.com>
To: dboyd at berry.edu
Cc: "Karen Mitchell"<Karen_Mitchell at infoworld.com>,
"Yun Wang"<Yun_Wang at infoworld.com>,
"Charlotte Ziems"<Charlotte_Ziems at infoworld.com>,
"Letters"<Letters at infoworld.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:34:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Web platform solutions comparison
--0__=XCQ1854aqmbbn8vAQP6BtrdvApNiCQiqSHvbvkWJmXXLZor4SEs0hVan
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Dan -
Thanks for all your comments regarding our recent Web Platform Solutions
Comparison. We are glad you were pleased to see the Apache Http server and
Linux OS compared to commercial products. We chose these solutions for
several reasons. First, after our previous web server comparison, which
compared expensive web servers that ran on NT and Solaris, our readers
expressed disapointment that their "free or cheap" solutions weren't
included, primarily Apache running on an inexpensive Intel-based server
versus something like Netscape running on a > $25K Unix box. Our readers
seemed convinced that their solutions were far better than anything we
compared. Second, we conducted a survey with our readers and they
expressed much interest in the Apache solution. Third, we researched
what's out on the 'net and found Apache abundant. According to the
Netcraft numbers, Apache commands 44% of the Internet.
The RedHat solution could have provided RAID support. Originally, it was
part of our test criteria, but the RedHat folks stated that very few of
their installed base actually employs RAID support. We attempted to design
each of the solutions as they are best represented in the real world.
Also, I'm not sure whether or not we would have discovered problems with
other Linux SMP kernels while running our benchmark. It would be
interesting to follow-up on that. You're absolutely right - a second
processor would have made quite a difference in performance. Actually,
with relatively light loads, the MP kernel worked well. Only when we
increased the load, the server choked.
As far as the projected ownership costs are concerned, the $30K does stand
out. According to our criteria, which we defined as a mission-critical web
application server, we required 4 hour on-site response for hardware
support. The Linux hardware solutions does not provide this support, so we
received multiple quotes for support and went with the lowest.
As far as the administration costs are concerned, we did not "ding" the
Apache solution because we had to manually edit configuration files. I
prefer this method to any number of mouse clicks! I really liked the
Apache server - it's simple, provides lots of functionality, and it's very
customizable. Their administration costs are higher for several reasons
of which all related to how well the solution handled the enterprise
management tasks we used while testing. For example, Apache does not
include enterprise management tools such as SNMP support for configuring,
monitoring, and trapping errors. All of the other solutions we tested
provided at least some level of SNMP support. In addition, Apache does not
provide tools for distributed or cluster management. Netscape provides
both distributed and cluster management tools.
Thanks again for your comments. We enjoy hearing from our readers!!!
Laura Wonnacott
(Embedded
image moved dboyd @ berry.edu
to file: 07/18/97 12:25 PM
PIC11403.PCX)
Please respond to dboyd at berry.edu
To: Laura Wonnacott/IWP
cc:
Subject: Web platform solutions comparison
Hello,
I was VERY surprised and pleased to see the Apache http server and
the Linux OS used in a comparison with commercial products. While I
would have chosen another Linux hardware/software integrator, the
numbers were surprising since the Linux box only had one processor
active. I would mention that there are Linux vendors today who
can offer RAID storage solutions and multi-processor solutions that
could raise the performance beyond what was displayed in testing.
The only item I take issue with is the projected basic ownership
costs for the Linux/Apache solution. I really need to get into the
VAR business if on-site support costs are that high. Also, while I
understand that editing text files takes more time than clicking a
mouse, I can't see how it could take almost twice the time to
administer a Linux server than any of the other examples. However,
these two factors sure do make the numbers even out! Just the
thoughts of a Linux sysadmin after three happy years of Linux
administering!
Dan
Daniel Boyd, CNA Voice: 706/236-1750
Network Manager Fax: 706/238-7858
Computing and Technology email: dboyd at berry.edu
Berry College "We are confronted with
insurmountable opportunities."
-Walt Kelly
Hello,
In my previous e-mail I suggested that you thought it would take
twice as long to adminster a Linux server as the other servers in
the Web platform comparison. Math never was my best subject! You
think it will take about 75% longer, not twice as long. Oops!
Dan
Daniel Boyd, CNA Voice: 706/236-1750
Network Manager Fax: 706/238-7858
Computing and Technology email: dboyd at berry.edu
Berry College "We are confronted with
insurmountable opportunities."
-Walt Kelly
--0__=XCQ1854aqmbbn8vAQP6BtrdvApNiCQiqSHvbvkWJmXXLZor4SEs0hVan
Content-type: application/octet-stream;
name="PIC11403.PCX"
Content-transfer-encoding: base64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--0__=XCQ1854aqmbbn8vAQP6BtrdvApNiCQiqSHvbvkWJmXXLZor4SEs0hVan--
Daniel Boyd, CNA Voice: 706/236-1750
Network Manager Fax: 706/238-7858
Computing and Technology email: dboyd at berry.edu
Berry College "We are confronted with
insurmountable opportunities."
-Walt Kelly
More information about the Ale
mailing list