From: awm...@oakland.edu (awmunn) Subject: Best Intel based Unix for Apache? Date: 1996/12/06 Message-ID: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 202651604 content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix What is the ebst Intel based Unix for running Apache on? FreeBSD? Linux? Solaris? Doesnt matter? please reply through email since I dont read this group very often. Thanks Andrew
From: Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com> Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache? Date: 1996/12/10 Message-ID: <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203663362 references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Internet Movie Database http://us.imdb.com/ mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1.6.1-RELEASE i386) awmunn wrote: > > What is the ebst Intel based Unix for running Apache on? > FreeBSD? Linux? Solaris? Doesnt matter? > > please reply through email since I dont read this group very often. If your hardware can handle it, go with FreeBSD. I use FreeBSD and highly recommend it. Juding by feedback on the Apache developers list developer, Linux and Solaris seem to be more trouble to setup/maintain. Everything is that much easier with FreeBSD. -- Rob Hartill. Internet Movie Database Ltd. http://www.imdb.com/
From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache? Date: 1996/12/12 Message-ID: <58ouq6$12p@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203697268 references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com> organization: CymruNET newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix In article <32ACB5B1.3F54B...@imdb.com>, Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com> wrote: >Juding by feedback on the Apache developers list developer, Linux >and Solaris seem to be more trouble to setup/maintain. Everything >is that much easier with FreeBSD. I'd very strongly have to disagree on the Linux maintenance issue. Solaris X86 I wouldnt currently advise. I can't seem to get any answer from Sun over the 'big ping crashes boxes' stuff like a fix date. (doesnt affect the sparcs). Since an upgrade consists of typing rpm --upgrade packagename and a new package install rpm --install packagename on all the decent Linux distributions Both FreeBSD and Linux will simply sit there and run. Both are great answers to the 'what shall we use apache for'. Alan -- Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net -------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194 Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support
From: d...@va.pubnix.com (David J MacKenzie) Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache? Date: 1996/12/13 Message-ID: <lobubymugy.fsf@catapult.va.pubnix.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203904114 sender: d...@catapult.va.pubnix.com references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com> organization: UUNET Technologies newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:58:25 +0000, Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com> said: > Juding by feedback on the Apache developers list developer, Linux > and Solaris seem to be more trouble to setup/maintain. Everything > is that much easier with FreeBSD. BSDI works very well too, once you tune some kernel parameters for best performance. Linux's TCP/IP code is significantly less optimized than any BSD's. If you run a heavily-used server, it will matter.
From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache? Date: 1996/12/13 Message-ID: <58sb6f$npo@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203960480 references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com> <lobubymugy.fsf@catapult.va.pubnix.com> organization: CymruNET newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix In article <lobubymugy....@catapult.va.pubnix.com>, David J MacKenzie <d...@va.pubnix.com> wrote: >BSDI works very well too, once you tune some kernel parameters for >best performance. Linux's TCP/IP code is significantly less optimized >than any BSD's. If you run a heavily-used server, it will matter. I take specific offence to that. The Linux 2.0 networking code has the lowest lmbench latencies of any generally used TCP/IP stack on the planet. May I humbly suggest you either a) Withdraw the claim b) Produce industry accepted tcp benchmark figures to show otherwise c) Speak to your lawyer (C is a joke BTW I'm not that sort of person) Alan -- Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net -------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194 Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support
From: d...@va.pubnix.com (David J MacKenzie) Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache? Date: 1996/12/13 Message-ID: <lo9172mbrw.fsf@catapult.va.pubnix.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203962715 sender: d...@catapult.va.pubnix.com references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com> organization: UUNET Technologies newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix On 13 Dec 1996 19:35:43 -0000, a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox) said: > I take specific offence to that. The Linux 2.0 networking code has the > lowest lmbench latencies of any generally used TCP/IP stack on the planet. I was going by the lmbench results reported at the January 1996 Usenix. I wasn't aware that Linux 2.0 had significantly different networking code than previous versions. I'm just aware of its historical trend of sucking in various ways :-)