Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!know!samsung!sdd.hp.com!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Interactive 2.2 problems
Summary: "bench" suggests 2.2 *may* be a bit faster in disk performance
Message-ID: <101@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jul 90 20:09:02 GMT
References: <382@denwa.uucp> <384@denwa.uucp>
Reply-To: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IRS - ACI Project Office
Lines: 24

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.

	But then again... I installed 2.2 last week on a system horribly
	limited (memory-wise) - 2 (two) MB 32-bit, 2 (two) MB 16-bit. Ran
	the BENCH program, source for which appeared in Unix/World,
	February 1989. Using the examples, one forks five processes, each
	of which writes 1000 512-byte blocks, or forks twenty processes,
	each of which writes 200 512-byte blocks.

	Each test ran from forks to completion in less than 15 seconds,
	which is somewhat faster than it ran under 2.0.2, notably faster
	than SCO Xenix on the same system and SCO UNIX on my office system.
	(What? You want numbers? You want details? Hey, this isn't going
	into the ACM Journal!)

	But then, I'm the guy who wrote an article years ago questioning
	whether benchmarks REALLY indicated what they claimed to indicate.
	The only conclusions I've drawn to date are: 1) ISC's Fast File
	System is a genuine enhancement; and 2) ISC 2.2 is somewhat faster
	than 2.0.2 in disk performance, though it takes somewhat more memory.