Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.roundabout.org!news.demon.co.uk!demon!peer-news.britain.eu.net!strath-cs!nntphost!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
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: 12 Jan 1996 14:27:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland
Lines: 26
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <JIM.96Jan12142722@dewar.cs.strath.ac.uk>
References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4cu7t0$mg5@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
<4cv8j1$59k@park.uvsc.edu> <4d37d4$j0l@gremlin.backfire.mn.org>
<DL29Az.Ax2@ftel.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dewar.cs.strath.ac.uk
In-reply-to: I.G.Batten@ftel.co.uk's message of Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:06:34 GMT
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:1921 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2066 comp.unix.solaris:57071 comp.unix.aix:68585
In article <DL29Az.Ax2@ftel.co.uk> I.G.Batten@ftel.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
The usual claim is that SunOS 4 is ``faster''. Just before I deleted my
SunOS 4.1.2 and SunOS 4.1.3 trees from /export on our Auspex (*) I tried
a few local jobs on a diskless 16M ELC running 4.1.2 and a diskless 16M
ELC running 2.5. The 2.5 gadget came in 10% or so faster on a wide
range of things.
Fair enough. However, application speed is not the big factor
here. [For starters, SunOS would be a *lot* faster if Mr. Sun expended
as much effort on it as they do fixing their self-inflicted problems
in Slowlaris.] The major concern I have is all the gratuitous SvsVR4
cruft that gets in the way of administering the system: the brain-dead
and truly horrid print spooler, SAF ('nuf said), all the rc.? crap,
the "-plumb" argument to ifconfig (WHY??), inittab and run levels,
etc, etc.
I am also heartily amused that the ``SunOS 4 is marvellous, what's this
5 crap?'' arguments are word for word identical to the abuse heaped on
SunOS 4 relative to SunOS 3.
Well not the arguments from me. Rather than fix something that was
broken, Sun (and all the other vendors) have broken something that was
fixed. This is the biggest complaint I have about Solaris: there's a
lot of pain for no real gain - apart from the artificial benefit of
getting an OS for the latest Sun kit that Sun won't let run SunOS.