Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: '386 Unix Wars
Keywords: sco unix interactive wars
Message-ID: <1990Dec22.053728.15660@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 90 05:37:28 GMT
References: <33791527@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <2812@cirrusl.UUCP> <5407@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 14

In article <5407@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>What this tells me is that the Esix port is pure AT&T file system without
>any performance enhancements at all.

No.  The default ESIX file system is their version of the BSD FFS.
But although I've never run any quantitative benchmarks, I would tend
to agree that ESIX's file system is slower.  I run ESIX-D on a 386/33
with 8 MB at home, and ISC 2.0.2 on a 386/25 with 4 MB at work.  Both
have Miniscribe 6085 drives running 1:1 interleave.  The ISC system
just feels faster, even though it's on a slower machine with less
RAM.  But overall, ESIX seems more robust.  No panics, crashes, or
spurious reboots like I have with ISC.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)