New Message: Re: More RAM = poor performance?

[webmaster at userland.com]

A new message was posted:

Address: http://frontier.userland.com/discuss/msgReader$9031

By: Sam DeVore (sdevore at cliffhanger.com)

David,

I was running into this as well when I was doing a bunch of testing on one of my servers (b&w g3 450) trying to to compare the difference between running at different allocated memories in 9 and I found that the line was there for me somewhere between 250 and 350. When I took the same machine and put os x (10.0.4) and the carbon version of frontier, the performance was somewhere in between the two (all testing done with pounder II on another g3 running os 9) but the advantage of better memory management and having apache on the same machine, were what prompted my shift to os x. Now that the machine is running 10.1 it feels like it is serving faster, more like when it was running 9 with the lower memory partion (haven't run my pounder tests yet however to quantify this 'feeling'

I have been happy running 10.x on this machine and the people using the system have never noticed the change, but some people say that is seems more responsive (I think it is because of the static content being served from apache)

So I don't know if this helps, but i think it would help all of us if we there was some quantitative data for some sample machine setups both on mac and win.

Sam D

This is a Manila site.. http://manila.userland.com/.