More Solaris on x86 Performance data

www.sun.com is featuring performance on Solaris x86 platforms. BTW, couple of you asked how the new TCP/IP stack can scale almost linearly. I am trying to understand how much I am allowed to say on blogs like this but hopefully next week sometime I will give a more technical rundown for the geeks out there.
Comments:

Your sun link includes the blog server so it doesn't work.

Posted by Paul Rogers on October 16, 2004 at 07:48 AM PDT #

hi,

yeah, second that, the link is to "http://blog.sun.com/roller/page/sunay/www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature, which just brings up an Apache Tomcat 404 error. Anyway, it's at http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/ - I don't know much about Sun hardware or configuration, or about their enterprise offerings, so I guess I'll have to wait until the trolls and sun-zealots on osnews.com start trying to pick this apart - perhaps you could submit it there? =)

bye, victor

Posted by Victor Hooi on October 16, 2004 at 08:02 AM PDT #

Sorry about the broken link. Its fixed now. I did post a link on osnew as well. Hopefully they will put it up.

Posted by Sunay on October 16, 2004 at 09:06 AM PDT #

Heard of Windows Server? Last time I checked, that was a server system running on x86 hardware. Or is Sun so much under the thumb of Microsoft, they're too scared to even compete and compare themselves with them? Perhaps next time you could slant your benchmarks towards "kill the competition" as opposed to just "kill Linux", for the sake of keeping up appearances.

Posted by Helloman on October 16, 2004 at 09:34 AM PDT #

I actually just submitted this to osnews.com a n hour or so ago, so I'm not sure who got it in first =). Helloman: I think you'll find that Windows isn't actually who Sun is gunning for - RH is unix-like, which makes it easier for customers to jump between the two (Sol & RH, that is), and in the market Sun's aiming for, Aix, HP-UX, and now, RH are the competition. (aside: stupid MS fanboy...go back to your silly little toys \*grin\*). bye, victor

Posted by Victor Hooi on October 16, 2004 at 10:34 AM PDT #

Err - that "benchmark" needs a little work what's it trying to answer? It's comparing different HW platforms, an almost 2 year old OS vs an OS that's in beta and different application workloads side by side. It's meaningless.

Posted by David Barker on October 16, 2004 at 10:52 AM PDT #

"Helloman: I think you'll find that Windows isn't actually who Sun is gunning for - RH is unix-like, which makes it easier for customers to jump between the two (Sol & RH, that is), and in the market Sun's aiming for, Aix, HP-UX, and now, RH are the competition. (aside: stupid MS fanboy...go back to your silly little toys \*grin\*). bye, victor"

Apache runs on Windows, so do application servers. So for what they were benchmarking, that argument is invalid. And I am the last thing from a Microsoft fanboy.

Posted by Helloman on October 16, 2004 at 11:03 AM PDT #

Hi,

David: No, it's about comparing two products that are competing in the same marketspace - RH Enterprise and Solaris 10 (which as far as I'm aware, is more or less complete - perhaps somebody at Sun could comment on an exact release date?).

Also, I think you'll find a lot of companies value driver support, stability, and a known track record over small (< 20 percent)performance gains. Hence the use of 2.4.x kernels in a range of enterprise Linux offerings.

So when companies consider buying Sol10, they'll also be looking at RH Enterprise - hence the benchmark of RH versus Solaris.

Helloman: No, you asked why they didn't benchmark Windows versus Sol10. I explained, that it might have been that these two products are not competing exactly head to head - RH is unix-like, as is Sol10, and both are going for the higher end market.

Also, what do you mean Apache on Windows? I would have thought if you wanted to compare web-serving performance of the two (which you wouldn't, since they're different markets), that you would use IIS on Windows. If you mean to compare OS performance, then that would be an unfair comparison towards Windows, since, as far as I know, Apache was designed originally for the \*nix platform.

Finally, you might want to check out the following two articles for a bit of a laugh. They're dated, I'll concede, so I'm not sure how true it still is - perhaps somebody could comment?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/ms_hotmail_servers_begin_switch/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/

Also, the netcraft survey (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html) shows that Apache is still well and truly kicking MS's arse =). However, Sun seems kinda dismal...maybe it'll pick up with the release of Sol10?

bye, Victor

NB: Also, Slackware 10 (my favourite distro \*grin\* - although I kinda like Ubuntu) still sticks to 2.4.x - see Pat's arguments for why.

Posted by Victor Hooi on October 16, 2004 at 12:04 PM PDT #

Hi,

David: No, it's about comparing two products that are competing in the same marketspace - RH Enterprise and Solaris 10 (which as far as I'm aware, is more or less complete - perhaps somebody at Sun could comment on an exact release date?).

Also, I think you'll find a lot of companies value driver support, stability, and a known track record over small (< 20 percent)performance gains. Hence the use of 2.4.x kernels in a range of enterprise Linux offerings.

So when companies consider buying Sol10, they'll also be looking at RH Enterprise - hence the benchmark of RH versus Solaris.

Helloman: No, you asked why they didn't benchmark Windows versus Sol10. I explained, that it might have been that these two products are not competing exactly head to head - RH is unix-like, as is Sol10, and both are going for the higher end market.

Also, what do you mean Apache on Windows? I would have thought if you wanted to compare web-serving performance of the two (which you wouldn't, since they're different markets), that you would use IIS on Windows. If you mean to compare OS performance, then that would be an unfair comparison towards Windows, since, as far as I know, Apache was designed originally for the \*nix platform.

Finally, you might want to check out the following two articles for a bit of a laugh. They're dated, I'll concede, so I'm not sure how true it still is - perhaps somebody could comment?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/ms_hotmail_servers_begin_switch/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/

Also, the netcraft survey (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html) shows that Apache is still well and truly kicking MS's arse =). However, Sun seems kinda dismal...maybe it'll pick up with the release of Sol10?

bye, Victor

NB: Also, Slackware 10 (my favourite distro \*grin\* - although I kinda like Ubuntu) still sticks to 2.4.x - see Pat's arguments for why.

Posted by Victor Hooi on October 16, 2004 at 12:38 PM PDT #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
About

Sunay Tripathi, Sun Distinguished Engineer, Solaris Core OS, writes a weblog on architecture for Solaris Networking Stack, GLDv3 (Nemo) framework, Crossbow Network Virtualization and related things

Search

Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today
Blogroll
News

No bookmarks in folder

Solaris Networking: Magic Revealed

No bookmarks in folder

solaris networking