There has been a lot of interest in the results of the SPECweb99
benchmark tests that were preformed on two similar Dell
PowerEdge 6400/700 servers.
At the end of the article I asked if the seemingly minor
differences in the hardware could account for the large difference
in the results. In addition to the talkbacks posted, I received
several emails with new information about the tests as well as
questions about the hardware involved.
One individual asked about the difference in the hard drive
controllers. This person noted:
"The Linux machine was equipped with an
Adaptec-7899 controller. This is a dual channel, Ultra160/m
controller. The Win2k machine was equipped with a Dell PERC2. This
is a quad channel, Ultra2 controller.
The difference is that the Linux machine had a controller
capable of 160MB/sec, while the Win2k machine had a controller
capable of 80MB/sec. I do think that could have impacted the
As it turns out, I was able to speak with an informed source who
has knowledge of the machines involved and tests performed on them.
When I relayed the concerns about the hard drive controllers, this
person was able to clarify it this way:
"Yes, but in what direction? The PERC2 had 128MB of
memory, and a CPU independent of the system's main processors.
Anyway, the disk configuration is nearly irrelevant to the W2K
results. Look at the result page - the fileset size is about 5GB,
and (the machines) had 8GB of RAM. Everything was cached - the only
disk activity was logging, which is pretty minimal. All the PERC2
did was get the data to memory quicker on the first access."
The individual who raise the hard drive controller question also
asked about the Network Controllers:
"The Linux machine was equipped with an AceNic
1000SX. This is a Gigabit Fiberoptic network adapter.
The Win2k machine was equipped with a AceNic PCI. This is a
autosensing 10/100/1000Base-T adapter using UTP.
The difference here is obvious, and you did not state at what
speed the Win2k boxes network connection was running at. That card
is capable of running either 1Gbit/s, 100Mbit/s, or 10Mbit/s,
autosensing. If plugged into the wrong port, or into a slower hub,
or with substandard cable, it could have been running at as much as
1/100 the speed of the card in the linux machine."
The person close the the tests responded:
"Actually his assumption is wrong. The client and
network switch setup was identical for both results. (The testers)
were just trying to clarify that the fiber NIC was being used.
ACEnic PCI (PCI bus) could be either fiber or copper now - in the
past there was only fiber, so ACEnic PCI was enough."
One person wrote in with concerns that the Linux machine had an
advantage since it was using an in-kernel HTTP cache. This would
give the Linux box a definite advantage when serving static pages.
While Windows does have a similar technology, doubts were raised
about it being used for the tests.
The person close to the test responded:
"Sun also has similar technology available in
Solaris 7 and 8, SNCA (Sun Network Cache Accelerator). Linux also
has similar technology in khttpd.
SNCA, FRCA, SWC and NWSA were used on SPECweb96, which was 100%
static content, but none have been used on SPECweb99 with 70%
static and 30% dynamic content. Certainly if they could be used,
they would be - competition for top SPECweb numbers is intense.
TUX includes an in-kernel HTTP cache but is also a full-
featured http server itself. The others above are only caches. Ingo
Molnar at Red Hat did the vast majority of the work on TUX and can
answer specific TUX questions."
When asked about Tux 1.0 and the performance difference Ingo Monar
of Red Hat responded:
> SNCA, FRCA, SWC and NWSA were used on
SPECweb96, which was 100% static
> content, but none have been used on SPECweb99 with 70% static
> dynamic content. [...]
Indeed, and I believe the reason is fundamental. I'd like to
refer to the following comment as a background on TUX's design:
object cache, where objects can be combined with dynamic
content freely. You can witness this in the SPECweb99 submission,
the SPECweb99 TUX dynamic module (every vendor has to write a
SPECweb99 module to serve dynamic content) 'embedds' TUX objects in
dynamic replies. The TUX object cache is not a dumb in-memory
HTTP-reply cache, it's a complex object cache providing async disk
IO capabilities to user-space as well. User-space application code
can request objects from the cache and can use them in dynamic (or
full fledged webserver providing HTTP 1.1 keepalive, CGI,
logging, transparent redirection, and many other features.
So in our opinion TUX is a new and unique class of webserver,
there is no prior art implementing such kind of 'HTTP stack' and
'abstract object cache' approach. It's i believe a completely new
approach to webserving. Please read this comment too, which (i
hope) further explains the in-kernel issue:
I'd like to point out that I have no affiliation with SPEC, and
we (Red Hat) picked the SPECweb99 suite because of it's
sophisticated and realistic workload and the independence SPEC
guarantees. The SPECweb99 suite is designed to create a complex
workload, and such workload defeats in-kernel static webcaches such
as SWC. The workload is 'mixed up', ie. the same web objects are
requested in static and dynamic requests, and it's forbidden to
cache dynamic replies. CGI requests are part of the workload as
I have specifically designed TUX to be integrated into Apache.
While the GPL (TUX is under the GPL) and the Apache Software
License are incompatible, I do plan to allow licensing the TUX
'user-space glue code' under the ASL as well - further easing the
integration of TUX capabilities into Apache 2.0 or 3.0."
Please feel free to post further comments and questions on these
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.