Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!slovax!lm
From: lm@slovax.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IOStone
Message-ID: <144169@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 90 00:37:54 GMT
References: <144018@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <3300200@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 32

In article <3300200@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>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?

Nope.  IOstone does not even pretend to deal with these areas.  It pretends
to deal with only disk I/O and doesn't do that right.  

	translate("IOstone")
	{
		return ("CacheStone");
	}

Now I don't like IOstone, for reasons that have been widely discussed and 
confirmed by others in private mail (thanks guys), so you may want to hear
it from the authors.  But they'll tell you it is just a disk benchmark.

---
Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems     (415) 336-7627       ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com