Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <8561@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 4 Nov 90 07:42:14 GMT
References: <1990Nov1.002513.8984@ico.isc.com> <608@escom.com> <1990Nov2.203059.13930@ico.isc.com>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 34


In article <1990Nov2.203059.13930@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>For some time, I've wondered what the software equivalent of RISC could
>be.

Ah ha!

This was discussed, albeit briefly, at the summer UseNIX in Anaheim (Dick,
you were there, didn't you see it?).  Anyway, the talk was, "Why isn't
software get faster as fast as hardware," or something like that, and the
point about RISC was brought up.

One of the points mentioned that a way to slow down an OS is to have lots of
context switches.  I agree; Mach is certainly worse in that respect than,
say, SysV.  However, just like the CISC vs. RISC debate, there's something
else to note: Mach has *quicker* context switches than generic Unix (and
that's why a BSD program, given the same hardware, only different OS's, will
run faster under Mach than SunOS [study done at CMU]).

Of course, the CFOS% designers can make their context switch times as fast
as the RFOS% people can, but the RFOS people will just keep getting
faster....  (Now, I *know* I've heard that before... 8-) 8-))

------
% CFOS = "Complex Featured Operating System," RFOS = "Reduced Feature
Operating System"
------

-- 
-----------------+
Sean Eric Fagan  | "*Never* knock on Death's door:  ring the bell and 
seanf@sco.COM    |   run away!  Death hates that!"
uunet!sco!seanf  |     -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor")
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.