Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Interactive 2.2 problems
Message-ID: <1990Jul03.113340.17976@virtech.uucp>
Date: 3 Jul 90 11:33:40 GMT
References: <382@denwa.uucp> <384@denwa.uucp>
Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill)
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA
Lines: 32

In article <384@denwa.uucp> jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes:
>After posting my recent impression of Interactive 2.2 being horribly
>slow, I  decided to do a simple unofficial comparison between 2.2 and
>2.0.2.

I have installed 2.2 and do not see the same slowdown that you have seen.
Your test is very dependent upon the scheduling priority for each of the
processes (i.e. if the background jobs have been niced, ps will get a
bigger portion of the cpu, and presumably finish earlier). Plus there is
also a factor of how long the yes processes were running before the ps
process was started. 

>6386E with 4 meg of RAM and 2.0.2:	6 seconds
>6386E with 16 meg of RAM and 2.2:      31 seconds

Another factor is what did ps have to do?  (i.e. if it had to rebuild
/etc/ps_data due to some change on the system, that would slow it down, OR
if there were more lines of output, that would also slow it down).

>Do I just have a bad copy, or is something wrong with the release?
>I'm hoping it's something simple like a tunable parameter is wrong,
>but...  

I have not seen the same problem (although I don't run on the console
of my system) so I would guess that the problem is associated with the
setup and/or hardware.


-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.,
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170