[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: free/non-free ladp servers comparizon

Hi,
I don't see any mention of the hardware used, was the same HW even used on the AD vs Linux machine? Cooking benchmarks is a fine art where the only thing you can really be sure of is that this "number" is not indicative of real life.....
Jim

At 10:02 AM 10/26/2000 -0400, Cliff Friedel wrote:


On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, David Obadia wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 07:44:41PM +0800, Kalman KK Wan wrote:
> > Sizing up LDAP servers
> > http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2000/0515rev2.html
>
> http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2000/0515rev2.html?nf#numbers
>
> The performance rates for OpenLDAP compared to Active Directory Server are not
> even close: How objective are this tests?
>
> Search Rate test with one client (Operation/sec):
> Open LDAP on Linux => 4.5
> Active Directory on Win 2000 => 999
>

I can tell you for a fact that we are seeing higher results than that with
no caching.  We are running an ISP and using LDAP for authentication
(using OpenLDAP) and are seeing 5-10 connections a second (at least
accoring to the logs).  I really expect seeing even more than that.  As
for AD, I really would like to see that.  I find it hard to believe a
company like Novell, for example, would use OpenLDAP in its deployment of
Netware 5.1 if AD was 200 times faster.  I think the tests were bought and
paid for by the Gates Collective.

> I'd like to see the tools they've used to make this tests!
>
> There is probably caching or something, that completely fake the result...
>
> Does anyone have a better explanation?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> | David Obadia - Aurora
> | mailto:dobadia@aurora-linux.com
> | http://www.aurora-linux.com/
> | phone: +33 (0)1 58 17 03 20
>
>
>