Apache - Windows vs Linux

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Wed Jan 25 11:18:49 MST 2006

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:12 -0700, Gregory Hill wrote:

> All kidding aside, IIS serves images much faster than Apache does, if
> the tests we did when I was working at Navitaire are indicative.  It may
> have been because Apache had mod_perl loaded, but we had to use
> mod_proxy to redirect image requests to lighttpd instead of Apache
> because Apache would spiral out of control in memory usage when serving
> lots of images.  I don't know the qualifications of the IT people
> involved or what configurations they used, as I was only responsible for
> the Perl code.  I found it a bit surprising, though, that serving images
> from lighttpd (on the same machine, no less, just a different port)
> dropped memory usage to about 1/3 of what was previously seen.  Not that
> I like IIS; I've always used apache myself.

Sounds like you were using Apache 1.3.  Performance varies depending on
the use case.  Apache in the past has been slower than IIS at serving
static content.  Apache 2.0 is much better in this regard.  Even still,
though, if performance is paramount, you need to use the Tux web server
to serve static content such as images, and then use apache to handle
the dynamic stuff.

There comes a point when you can only get so much faster, though. Once
your pipe is saturated, you're pretty much maxed out.  I've heard that
Tux can saturate a 100 Mb/s link and not max out the system load.  Of
course there's the issue of raw bandwidth vs the number of connections.
Judging by slashdot, there are plenty of sites running Apache that we
can bring to their knees with merely a large number of connections.  On
the other hand slashdot has managed to destroy servers from all vendors.


> Now, where's my flame-retarded suit...
> Greg 
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */

More information about the PLUG mailing list