Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Workstation Disk I/O
Message-ID: <0093DBD0.267D68E0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 5 Oct 90 17:41:02 GMT
References: <14900016@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>,<2387@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 14

In article <2387@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>, jtc@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (J.T. Conklin) writes:

>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.

Not surprised. I bet some of that rolls back to the CPUs of the latter 3
machines....VAXstation II is not exactly a screamer in today's society.