Return-Path: Received: from mail.eyup.org (mail.eyup.org [212.69.253.65]) by mail.os2site.com (Weasel v1.37) for ; 14 Mar 2002 22:39:26 Received: by mail.eyup.org (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.03/2.0) id LAA004.72; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:30:05 GMT Message-Id: <200203141130.LAA004.72 at mail.eyup.org> Received: from zuko.mitm.ru by mail.eyup.org (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.03/2.0) id LAA004.68; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:30:01 GMT Received: from zuko.imi.net.ru by zuko.mitm.ru (OS/2 ESMTP Server v0.4a) for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:29:53 +0400 (RUS) From: "Stepan Kazakov" To: "os2-unix at eyup.org" Date: Thu, 14 Mar 02 15:29:52 +0500 X-Mailer: PMMail 1.92 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [UnixOS2] OS/2 v. Linux performance Sender: owner-os2-unix at eyup.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: os2-unix at eyup.org On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:01:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for >apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? ;) first of all : OS/2 tcp/ip stack must be slower then Linux stack, because of OS/2 modularity second: apache/emx must be slower because of : 1. emx layer 2. slow fork implementation. also current emx limited to 2048 sockets max. for now there are : apache from ibm, threaded and compiled with VAC; web/2 tiny native os/2 threaded webserver; squid/VAC - not complited yet, but almost working. they must be much better then emx ports. --- madded. [Red Hot Chili Hackers]