Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IOStone
Message-ID: <3300200@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 90 00:52:00 GMT
References: <144018@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:sun.Eng.Sun.COM:144018:m.cs.uiuc.edu:3300200:000:770
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Oct 23 19:52:00 1990


In all this IOStone talk, I only hear about disk performance and disk
cacheing.  That is not enough.

Paging is important
Network throughput is important
Serial I/O (like a 56Kbaud download from another machine) is
   important.
High Bandwidth Display is *very* important.

In fact, it's my impression that manufacturers are MORE likely to
screw up these other areas, rather than disk I/O.  There seems to be
more disk I/O standardization (SCSI, Unix, stdio.h) than ethernet,
video display, or serial line driver interface standardization.

Are these other IO performances tested by IOStone?


Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801      
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies