Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!pyramid!moliver
From: moliver@shadow (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: ~8-job "knee" in response curves on Suns (was Re: IBM RS6000)
Message-ID: <142043@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 22 Jan 91 22:45:16 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: moliver@shadow.pyramid.com (Mike Oliver)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 18

In article <3987@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes:
>In article <4972@lure.latrobe.edu.au> CCHD@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Huw Davies - La Trobe University Computer Centre) writes:
>>PS I doubt the answers for > 100 processes....
>
>The code was hacked up on the spot and lacks any checks for pipe() and
>fork() failing.  Once the process or file table fills up, results will
>be nonsense.

This is true; before I put error checking into my copy I was getting
upwards of 100 million switches per second with large numbers of
processes.  I was impressed  :-)

>-- Richard

Mike.

moliver@pyramid.com
{allegra,decwrl,hplabs,munnari,sun,utai,uunet}!pyramid!moliver