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(a)wheaton.edu
>
tthompson+mediawiki(a)envisionware.com 06/13/2005 12:20:11 AM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l