[5086] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: user cgi-advice SUMMARY
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (DeepSummer-HomeofWebSiteDesignsExt)
Wed Apr 16 07:32:38 1997
From: Deep Summer - Home of Web Site Designs Extraordinare
<frank@deepsummer.com>
To: "www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu" <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>,
"'Richard Costine'" <rjc@n2k.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 03:20:36 -0600
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Not sure I follow - better and worse are not the same
as faster and slower.
But, my dog does eat Kenel Ration, so he's definitely
better than your dog.
-arf!
----------
From: Richard Costine[SMTP:rjc@n2k.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 6:15 PM
To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: user cgi-advice SUMMARY
Deep Summer - Home of Web Site Designs Extraordinare wrote:
>
> > don't personally have a problem with Apache on Linux or FreeBSD on a PC, but
> > my customers want something better.
>
> Better than Apache? ... (falling... falling... *klunk*...)
Speaking of better or worse than Apache: Has anyone actually run any
benchmarks between Apache (under BSDI) and IIS (under NT). For example,
on a 128MB P-166 measured how long (in seconds) it takes a set of fixed
pages to be returned to a client?
BTW. I realize this is *slightly* off topic, but if anyone can point me
to a www-performance list I'd be much obliged.
