Lowrez wrote:

Sorry, we don't post the results of our tests online.  I can't really speak to the testing methodolgies of other companies, but we run Apache and IIS on identically configured Windows boxes and Apache gives better results.  Personally, I have problems with URL blasters like web bench and I think everyone should be using Compuware's QALoad (blatant plug) or at least Mercury's LoadRunner when doing performance analysis.


I think you are proving his point about anecdotal, non-published "test results."  Smiley  I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who has a brother whose third cousin swears that Apache is faster... Smiley

I'm not saying I doubt your results, but you didn't say anything about your testing methodology.

Are you comparing apples to oranges?  That is, a web server designed (by default) to serve static content (Apache) versus a web server designed (by default) to serve dynamic content (IIS 5.1 and earlier)?  Maybe an apples-to-apples would be dynamic (PHP) vs. dynamic (ASP).  IIS can also be tuned to provide better performance if it's only delivering static pages (i.e. ASP not required), which would be a much more fair comparison to Apache, but IIS (5.1 & earlier) isn't tuned that way out of the box.

Also, are you referring to IIS 5.1 or earlier, or IIS 6?  IIS 6 only does static content "by default" (you actually have to go out of your way to enable ASP!!!) and the performance is far, far better than previous flavors of IIS.

You don't have to tell the world your test results, but knowing a little about your testing methodology would give us a clue about whether you're smoking dope or not when you say "Apache is faster."

Sometimes people omit details for a reason (e.g. claiming that their '74 Pinto is faster than a Ferarri, while conveeeeeeeniently neglecting to mention that the Pinto has been fitted with solid rocket boosters and the Ferrari is missing all four wheels).