Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Future of SCO UNIX Message-ID: <2540@sixhub.UUCP> Date: 9 Dec 90 02:56:15 GMT References: <35@unigold.UUCP> Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY Lines: 32 In article karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: | >I may be crazy, but I think if they go with OSF/1 and | >Mach (which is what it SEEMS like they are moving towards) | >you will see a MUCH faster and better system than anyone | >has seen sofar! | | Prove it. Or at least give us more to go on than your feelings. Well, let's see, from my uptime command: ==> 9:49pm up 152 days, 21:09, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.08, 0.34 And from the sysstat: oops, can't mail curses output. Anyway, system time is 6.8%. And from vmstat I note that system time peaks at about 30%, but 12-15 is typical. Why am I telling you this? Because you simply can't get a "MUCH faster" system when the overhead is that low. You could get more by faster i/o (I spend more time wait i/o than in kernel mode), but on a typical system there is that much overhead to improve. You could get a smaller kernel, but then the i/o buffers are bigger than the kernel code in a tuned system, even with the V.4 kernel. There are advantages to mach, but with typical kernel CPU and size, given $42/MB memory, I'm not about to switch because I can save one, two, or even three MB of memory, or cut my kernel CPU, paging, or whatever, in half. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me