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
tthompson+mediawiki@envisionware.com 06/13/2005 12:20:11 AM >>>
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of FL Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 3:02 PM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Windows Apache & IIS vs Linux Apache performancedifferences
Question: is this comparison between LAMP vs WIMP implementations of the same software being made on molecularly identical hardware? The LAMP configuration is about 3 1/2 times faster than the WIMP configuration.
The comparison is on vastly different hardware. The LAMP hardware is a Pentium 3 laptop at 850Mhz, 200MB RAM. The WIMP hardware is a Pentium 4 server at 2+ Ghz, 512MB RAM.
This actually makes the speed of the LAMP implementation even more stunning; at half the CPU and half the RAM, it's consistently 4 times faster than the WIMP server.
- Troy Thompson
_______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l