Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!apple!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!elaine41.stanford.edu!fangchin From: fangchin@elaine41.stanford.edu (Chin Fang) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Performance differences between 386 Unices Message-ID: <1990Nov15.173220.2099@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 15 Nov 90 17:32:20 GMT References: <2285@sixhub.UUCP> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Distribution: na Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 31 bill> Using this test of disk performance I find that SCO Xenix has better bill>performance than any of the V.3 or V.4 variants I've tried. bill> bill> Test conditions: unloaded system, multiuser mode, typically 4MB to 8MB bill>memory. Write performed by a C program looping writing 1k blocks. Time bill>from the time system call. bill> bill> You are the sole judge of how well the results of this test apply to bill>any productive work you may run on the machine. bill>-- bill>bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) Bill's test is very similar to a comprehensive test of sco xenix 386, micropot 386/at unix, enix(now esix) rev.a, and a few others conducted by MIPS magazine (now Personal Workstation) about two years ago. MIPS testers used very similar machine configurations to Bill's. And most interestingly, their conclusions are also close to Bill's given above. (MIPS obviously didn't have R4 available for test, however) I still remember that one MIPS tester mentioned that in terms of memory requirement, SCO 386 xenix won hands down. Over years of refinement(?), SCO indeed reduced the kernal size of 386 than any of UNIX V5 R3.2. People interested in what MIPS did can go to library and check it out. MIPS is somewhat a new magazine started barely three years ago(?). Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University [Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Div.] fangchin@portia.stanford.edu fang@rocket.cadcam.rok.com