Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uunet!talgras!david From: david@talgras.UUCP (David Hoopes) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Performance differences between 386 Unices Message-ID: <10@talgras.UUCP> Date: 15 Nov 90 20:44:10 GMT References: <2285@sixhub.UUCP> Reply-To: david@talgras.UUCP (David Hoopes) Distribution: na Organization: Tallgrass Technologies Inc. Lines: 39 In article <2285@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > > Using this test of disk performance I find that SCO Xenix has better >performance than any of the V.3 or V.4 variants I've tried. > I did some testing awhile back comparing file access speed on SCO Xenix 2.3.2 and SCO Unix 3.2 My tests involved reading 10 1meg files, 200 small files in one directory, and about 50 small files each in its own directory. Both tests where performed on the same 33mhz 386 and the same type of hard drives. I was trying to find out how fast I could read these files off of the filesytem. I used the following command and timed it with a stop watch: tar cvf /dev/null filenames With a brand new filesystem: Xenix averaged 13 meg/min Unix averaged 23 meg/min I ran a shell script that backed up the files to tape, removed the files, restored the files, and then tested them (I was testing the tape driver), and then repeated. I let it run for 24 hours and then repeated the time test. Xenix averaged 3 meg/min Unix averaged 22 meg/min Unix was faster to start with and had very little degredation from the repeated writing and removing the files. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Hoopes Tallgras Technologies Inc. uunet!talgras!david 11100 W 82nd St. Voice: (913) 492-6002 x323 Lenexa, Ks 66214