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.mira.net.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!peer-news.britain.eu.net!yama.mcc.ac.uk!thor.cf.ac.uk!news From: P.Fayers@astro.cf.ac.uk (Phillip Fayers) Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Sender: news@cf.ac.uk (USENET News System) Message-ID: <DLFrsq.6u@cf.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 16:14:50 GMT Distribution: inet X-Nntp-Posting-Host: beetle.astro.cf.ac.uk Reply-To: P.Fayers@astro.cf.ac.uk References: <DL3Bv8.22H@ritz.mordor.com> Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cardiff University, Wales Lines: 37 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2043 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2205 comp.unix.solaris:57797 comp.unix.aix:69151 In article <DL3Bv8.22H@ritz.mordor.com>, bet@ritz.mordor.com (Bennett Todd) writes: >>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. > >Sure are. A Sun 3/50 (16MHz 68020, video framebuffer on the memory bus, 4MB >RAM non-expandable) running SunOS 3.5 was a whole lot more responsive and >pleasant than a Sparcstation 2 running SunOS 4.0.1. By 4.1.3_U1b, Sun had >gotten SunOS 4.x nearly as stable as SunOS 3.x had been, and everyone was >running it on SS-5 and faster boxes with 64MB or more of memory. Then it >didn't feel quite so awful. > >By 2.5 Sun seems to have made Solaris 2 nearly as useable as SunOS 4.x was 5 >years ago. As long as you've got an SS-20 with 128MB of memory to run it on, >it plods along OK (assuming you aren't masochistic enough to run CDE; that >crawls dog-slow even on a top-end box). As others have noted experience has shown us that 2.3 runs at about the same speed as the 4.1.3 release on the same hardware. 2.4 is better, 2.5 gets better still. I've run all these releases on the IPC which is on my desk and it copes with all of them with 24 MBytes or RAM. CDE needs a bit more, but then it is a first release so we should see it getting better. >So yeah, 2.5 is OK, I can live with it; like any other non-standard, >ill-maintained OS, What do you mean by ill-maintained? We haven't found anything ill-maintained with our 2.4 or 2.5 machines (or 2.3 for that matter). -- Phillip Fayers Email: P.Fayers@astro.cf.ac.uk SunAdmin/Support/Programming/Postmaster(TM) Phone: +44 (0)1222 874000 ext 5282 University of Wales, College of Cardiff Fax : +44 (0)1222 874056 Department of Physics and Astronomy WWW : http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/ P.O. Box 913, Cardiff, CF2 3YB. I speak for myself, not UWCC.