This set of tests was run on a Hewlett-Packard 9000 (E45) system (64MB RAM, running HP-UX 9.04), with wu-ftpd running 35 users, and NcFTPd running at 35, 70, and 120 users.

Wu-ftpd is keeping the system buried. NcFTPd with the same 35 users leaves the system 60% idle most of the time. NcFTPd with 70 users also leaves the system less busy than wu-ftpd with only 35. Most interesting of all was how NcFTPd with 120 users, or about 3.5 times as many users, fares similarly to wu-ftpd (actually moderately better!).

The second graph shows the load during the tests. NcFTPd at both 35 and 70 users fare better than wu-ftpd at 35 users. But wu-ftpd at 35 users posts better system load average numbers than NcFTPd with 120 users. But, both graphs readily indicate that NcFTPd is a better choice for HP-UX.

The data transfer charts follow. Not only did NcFTPd move more data out the door, it moved it faster. If you compare NcFTPd at 120 users with wu-ftpd at 35 users, you'll see that the machine was able to pump out almost 3 times the amount of data (at a significant decrease in average throughput, though).

• Linux: NcFTPd and wu-ftpd at 50 users
• AIX: NcFTPd and ftpd at 35 and 50 users
• SCO Open Server 5: NcFTPd and ftpd at 25 users
• Back to performance tests introduction
• Back to NcFTPd Home Page