On 6/13/05, Michael Rhoadarmer
<Michael.R.Rhoadarmer(a)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.
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
Before this topic goes into OS war territory, let me clarify my motivation
for the original post.
In times past, I've encountered PHP application performance differences
between platforms, but never anything this noteworthy. Granted, MediaWiki is
the largest 3rd party PHP app I've deployed, and I've not had the time to
dig under the hood.
I just want to ensure I've not overlooked something in IIS or PHP which
would improve the performance. Has anyone compared Windows/IIS vs
Linux/Apache and found vast differences in MediaWiki performance?
-----
Troy Thompson
IT Manager, Envisionware, Inc
tthompson(a)envisionware.com <mailto:tthompson@envisionware.com>
678-584-5911 x 212