[WinMac] Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet

Michael bartosh(bartosh[at]tamu.edu)
Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:57:59 -0500

> Sigh...
>
> Why not actually take a look at the c't article? Here's the URL again:
><http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>.
>
> Also, I find it hard to believe that TSE would peg out at
>99.9% CPU usage,
>unless there's a configuration problem or IDE drives being used... Oops! It
>also has Citrix MetaFrame loaded... Ugh. Try W2k with built-in Terminal
>Server instead.

I was not able to reproduce c'st's results.

The OS seemed to freeze for 30 sec, but recovered.

-mab

> Cheers!
> Dan
>
>At 10:21 PM 6/28/99 -0400, John Welch wrote:
> >In that case, neither is NT, as one person running Word on an NT
> >Terminal Server /Citrix Metaframe box can eat 99.9% of the CPU, and it's
> >only about a 3 page document. Oh, the server in question has ~580MB of
> >RAM, one 8GB mirror for a system disk, and a 26GB RAID 5 array for user
> >home directories. All that story proves is that it is easily possible to
> >crash OSX server. The same is true of NT, Solaris, and if you know what
> >you are doing, an AS/400. Big poofing deal. What I want to see is a test
> >between single processor boxes running, Linux, NT, OSX Server and
> >Solaris, BUT, instead of the usual 50-60 clients, which plays into NT's
> >sweet spot, I want to see results with loads from 100 to 500 clients on
> >one box. Somehow, I see IIS' vaunted performance curve doing a
> >precipitous drop, while the *nixen stay relatively flat.
> >
> >John
> >
> >"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
> >>
> >> Good afternoon!
> >>
> >> While researching NT vs linux "shootouts" by the likes of MindCraft,
>Ziff-Davis, and c't (German magazine), I stumbled across, as a footnote to
>the c't article, the following...
> >>
> >> From <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>:
> >>
> >> MacOS X (re)served
> >>
> >> With MacOS X, Apple is targeting the server market. The Unix-based
>operating system with integrated Apache is especially intended for
>performance web server use. We were curious and put our test setup against
>a server of this kind. However, the results can only convey a first
>impression since we optimized neither MacOS X nor the integrated Apache for
>this task. The entire system ran with its default settings.
> >> In addition, although the G3 Mac with its PowerPC 750e (400 MHz) we used
>does compare to a Pentium II Xeon (450 MHz), its memory of 128 MBytes RAM
>is rather on the small side. This alone is enough reason to run this server
>'out of competition' here.
>
> [cut]
>
> >>
> >> And, reference [5], which is in the middle of the page:
> >>
> >> [5] CGI-MacPanic: <http://www.heise.de/ct/99/13/186/CGI-MacPanic>, see
>also CGI Causes MacOS X Server To Panic
><http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186/>
> >>
> >> It's worth noting that unlike MindCraft, the folks at c't can hardly be
>called Microsoft sycophants.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Dan
>
>
>* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Jun 28 1999 - 21:00:57 PDT