Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!jtc
From: jtc@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (J.T. Conklin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Workstation Disk I/O
Message-ID: <2387@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 5 Oct 90 16:01:16 GMT
References: <14900016@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>
Organization: UniFax Communications Inc., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 23

In article <14900016@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> sritacco@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Steve Ritacco) writes:
>Let's consider the SPARCstations, DECstations, Personal Iris, Mips Magnum,
>NeXT, HP s300/s400, Sony NEWS, etc.
>
>How do each of these systems handle their disk I/O, what are the cost/
>performance advantages of the approaches, what is the realized performance,
>what is the potential performance, and what is the bottle-neck?

The June 1990 ACM Computer Architecture News contains the article
"IOStone: A Synthetic File System Benchmark" by Park, Becker, and
Lipton.  They report the results of their benchmark on a diskfull and
a diskless Sparcstation, a Sun 3/80, a Decstation 3100, a NeXT, a Sun
2/120, a Vaxstation II, an Apollo DN3000, and a Macintosh II.

The thing I found interesting was Sun's variable size disk cashe
really skewed the results of the benchmark.  The diskless Sparcstation
outpreformed the Vaxstation, the Apollo, and the Mac.

	--jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin	UniFax Communications Inc.
		...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc@wimsey.bc.ca