[Mediawiki-l] Windows Apache & IIS vs Linux Apache performancedifferences

[Michael Rhoadarmer]

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 at wheaton.edu

>>> tthompson+mediawiki at envisionware.com 06/13/2005 12:20:11 AM >>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mediawiki-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org 
> [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces at 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 at Wikimedia.org 
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l