On the OS side I really don't care, I use the best one for the application I'm running. But lets face it Windows engineers have decided that bigger is better and Linux engineers pride themselves on how small they can go. If you want to run Windows and have it run at full steam you need power, space and RAM. That was my point in comparing technology to hardware. I think that in Web apps like MediaWiki, LAMP is way to go and you only use WIMP if its madated by company policy.
Michael Rhoadarmer, Media Systems Manager Wheaton College Wheaton, IL 60187 michael.r.rhoadarmer@wheaton.edu
FL lengyel@gmail.com 06/13/2005 8:56:06 AM >>>
On 6/13/05, Michael Rhoadarmer Michael.R.Rhoadarmer@wheaton.edu wrote:
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Open Source software has issues on a Windows box, especially 2000 which is running on a 6 year old design. The question might be would the same issue be there if you were running MSSQL and .NET instead of PHP and MySQL? Also, 512 is a lot of RAM for LAMP but its only a light snack for a Windows server. That's our minimum standard for office workstations. Still, for a fairer comparison of technology (not hardware) I would double the RAM, install 2003, and eliminate all non-essential services. I also might try it turning of page files and going straight RAM.
Michael Rhoadarmer, Media Systems Manager Wheaton College Wheaton, IL 60187 michael.r.rhoadarmer@wheaton.edu
Why is building an even bigger server than the one already twice as fast a
"fairer" comparison? How much does the LAMP configuration have to be handicapped before the WIMP configuration becomes "fair"? The distinction between "technology" and "hardware" needs further clarification, to put it mildly. I suppose one should consider the cost. Why spend more for proprietary systems and hardware (not "technology"!) for worse performance?
FL _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l