Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!helena.MT.net!nate
From: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison)
Date: 11 Jan 1996 17:23:40 GMT
Organization: SRI Intl. - Montana Operations
Lines: 70
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4d3h2s$j3r@helena.MT.net>
References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4cu7t0$mg5@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4cv8j1$59k@park.uvsc.edu> <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za>
Reply-To: "Nate Williams" <nate@sneezy.sri.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: trout.sri.mt.net
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:1889 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2035 comp.unix.solaris:56904 comp.unix.aix:68453
In article <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za>,
Gavin Maltby <gavin@durban.vector.co.za> wrote:
>Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote:
>
>: Personally, I intentionally associate because I don't think
>: that SunOS 5.x is worthy of the name SunOS.
>
>Nonsense!
How can you say that his opinion is nonsense? He's entitled to that
opinion (and I happen to agree with him)
>: It is generally inferior in almost all respects (save MP).
>
>Further crud. I could fill a few pages of benefits over SunOS 4.
Benefits == features in your book. Slowlaris is full of feeping
creaturism, which isn't always a good thing in my book.
>: Sun had to back-port 4.1.3 to the new hardware because some
>: of the Japanese OEM's (Hitachi, Tatung, from memory) threatened
>: to do their own BSD port because they hated Solaris so much.
>
>Featurewise, Solaris has many times more to offer an application.
>No developer looks at Solaris 2 and say "I am glad none of those
>features are in SunOS 4".
But many developers do say this. "Boy, I wish my box ran like it used to."
Fact:
SRI 'upgraded' a 'Sparc 5' from SunOS 4 -> Slowlaris 2.4, and
experienced a 3x slowdown on *EVERYTHING* that we used. We *were*
running 32MB in the box, and it because completely unusable. Now, the
applications we ran we're *exactly* the same (they are coming from an
NFS exported disk from a SunOS 4 box).
Now, multi-threaded, hot-rod VM, (slower NFS than the Sparc 10, which is
a slowe model than the Sparc 5), bigger memory footprint, and completely
useless serial lines is a 'better' thing?
It depends on what you want, and what I want is a usable computer.
Slowlaris is simply unusable using the same HW as SunOS 4.
Now, I admit that having more standard include files is good, but I have
little use for a VM system which is a pig, and all the other niceties that
Slowlaris bought me.
Many of the 'new' features on Slowlaris could have been ported to the
BSD kernel, but weren't for political reasons. Now, in 5 years, Slolaris
might get as fast as SunOS used to be, but that will be because it finally
has some time to mature and hardware will be an order of magnitude faster.
But, forcing folks to use Slowlaris is a *bad* thing. Let the users decided
what they want for features.
You can argue all day about how many great features it has, and how it's
better but I'm stuck with a bunch of hardware that is useless because
Sun has no upgrade path. And, I'm in the same boat as thousands of
other users.
Nate
--
nate@sneezy.sri.com | Research Engineer, SRI Intl. - Montana Operations
nate@trout.sri.MT.net | Loving life in God's country, the great state of
work #: (406) 449-7662 | Montana.
home #: (406) 443-7063 | A fly pole and a 4x4 Chevy truck = Heaven on Earth