Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:47515 comp.os.386bsd.questions:3705 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:59898 comp.windows.x.i386unix:2431 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.windows.x.i386unix Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!pipex!uknet!gdt!aber!fronta.aber.ac.uk!pcg From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Subject: Re: SUMMARY: 486DX2/66 for Unix conclusions (fairly long) In-Reply-To: metcalf@CATFISH.LCS.MIT.EDU's message of 9 Jul 1993 17: 13:39 GMT Message-ID: <PCG.93Jul12003233@decb.aber.ac.uk> Sender: news@aber.ac.uk (USENET news service) Nntp-Posting-Host: decb.aber.ac.uk Reply-To: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Organization: Prifysgol Cymru, Aberystwyth References: <21k903$3q4@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 23:32:33 GMT Lines: 52 >>> On 9 Jul 1993 17:13:39 GMT, metcalf@CATFISH.LCS.MIT.EDU (Chris >>> Metcalf) said: Chris> o Linux uses the disk better: shared libraries for Chris> executables, and virtual memory is physical memory PLUS disk Chris> swap partitions; 386BSD currently uses unshared libraries Chris> (though apparently some people are working on this), and does Chris> the usual BSD virtual memory technique where all virtual memory Chris> must be backed by swap. On the other hand Linux does no swapping. However the BSD swapper sucks, but maybe it's better than nothing. However overall I think that the VM subsystem is better under BSD than Linux, even if I would love for it to use page fault frequency as policy. Chris> o Linux DOS emulation seems to be better developed and evolving. Chris> Linux has some failings (e.g. the networking code is not as Chris> robust as BSD's), but problems seem to be being dealt with Chris> rapidly. The main difference is that the BSd kernel is stable, and BSD 4.4 has been vastlu cleaned up and made more coherent and more general; the Linux kernel is not badly written, but its organization is far more haphazard. Chris> Disk space is simple: figure out how much you need, and double Chris> it. I decided to get a 340 meg disk, which seems ridiculously Chris> more than necessary for me today, so it will probably be stuffed Chris> full by the end of the year. Get at least 1GB. The cost per MB on disks >= 1GB is much lower than the cost per MB for disks with lower capacities. A 1GB costs around $1050 mail order... And it will fill up much sooner than you think. Also, get a CDROM. This will avoid you a lot of FTP hassle, if nothing else. Chris> You will need to decide if you want to get a SCSI adapter and a Chris> SCSI disk; however, it will definitely be more expensive, since Chris> you need a separate SCSI controller (about $200), and SCSI disks Chris> are often more expensive than IDE disks. Furthermore, it is said Chris> that for disks up to 500MB, SCSI probably won't give you any Chris> noticeable performance improvement unless you are running a Chris> heavily used disk server. Terrible mistake. The real benefits of SCSI are improved performance if you have more than one hard disk drive (much recommended), and that one controller will also handle tapes, CDROMs, and whatnot. Soon enough you will want to add a backup device (don't bother with QIC drives, it's a false economy, the tapes are too expensive, get a DAT for $1050), and a CDROM. Not having chosen SCSI you will need one or maybe two extra controllers, taking up another one or two precious ISA bus slots.