Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!odin.oar.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!bry From: bry@netcom.com (Bryan Althaus) Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Message-ID: <bryDLA13C.MAL@netcom.com> Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4cv8j1$59k@park.uvsc.edu> <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za> <4d3h2s$j3r@helena.MT.net> <4dfm6a$h5f@panix2.panix.com> Distribution: inet Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:50:00 GMT Lines: 56 Sender: bry@netcom19.netcom.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2006 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2160 comp.unix.solaris:57487 comp.unix.aix:68915 Thor Lancelot Simon (tls@panix.com) wrote: : In article <4d3h2s$j3r@helena.MT.net>, : Nate Williams <nate@sneezy.sri.com> wrote: : [deletia] : >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. : Hell, if you look at the Usenix papers of a few years ago, it's pretty : obvious that the 'new' features on Slowlaris were ported *from* the BSD : kernel, and that developers at SUN were given pretty strict marching : orders not to *ever* let any of the 4.1.3 "prototype" versions get outside : the fence, probably because they'd make Slowlaris look, well, like shit. : I'm particularly fond of the paper on the slab memory allocator, where the : performance of the 4.4BSD, 4.1.3, and "slab" kernel allocators is compared : _in a 4.1.3 kernel_, and great advantages are claimed for the new code -- : which then got saddled with running in Slowlaris 2.X and became part and : parcel of one of the most notoriously sluggish VM systems ever. The VM system has been overhauled. Subject: Re: What's new in Solaris 2.5? Date: 3 Jun 1995 08:13:14 GMT Here's a brief summary of the high points: [snip] Performance Improvements: Timesharing: dramatically improved due to low-level VM rewrite, in-kernel telnet/rlogin support, per-processor kernel memory allocation, and breakup of global locks in ufs, tmpfs and VM. Pipes: new pipe implementation 5 times faster than 2.4. Standard I/O: fread(3S) and fwrite(3S) 4 times faster than 2.4. Kernel memory comsumption: reduced by roughly a megabyte on most platforms (sun4m, sun4d, and i86pc). [snip] : Mind you, the SMP is nice, but I'm not convinced it's any better than SVR4MP, : despite being a totally independent implementation. If SUN had had a clue, : they would have bought Solbourne's code before they went under and managed : not to lose so badly for years and years just for the "privilege" of running : System V.