Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!marz
From: marz@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.zam)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: VPix & Dos partition (Was: Simple database software for sysV?)
Message-ID: <1991Feb20.150416.6911@cbfsb.att.com>
Date: 20 Feb 91 15:04:16 GMT
References: <1991Feb03.210343.18244@chinet.chi.il.us> <87004@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1991Feb07.011850.19550@chinet.chi.il.us>
Sender: news@cbfsb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 39

:From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
:
:>I've been using pkunzip alot under ISC/VPix lately.  While the
:>program seems to work at the same speed as native DOS, writing
:>to our Micropolis 320meg scsi is noticably slower than if I access
:>the DOS partition via native DOS.  This was true even if I was
:>the only login.  In fact, I installed some commercial software
:>(about 10megs worth) on the dos partition by booting DOS from
:>floppy because disk writing seemed faster to me than doing the
:>same from VPix.
:
:>Any comments?  For your reference, the computer is an Intel 
:>model 302, 25mhz, 8meg.
:
:On mine, there is only a slight difference, but I'm running a Conner
:IDE drive which has on-board buffering.  Perhaps you are close to
:missing the interleave on the disk and the overhead of VP/ix is
:enough to miss and require another disk revolution.
:
:Les Mikesell
: les@chinet.chi.il.us
:
When I run Norton Advanced v4.5 on my 33Mhz 386 with 320Mbyte ESDI,
I get the following figures:

	PURE DOS 4.01			VPIX under UNIX
	CI = 39.7			CI = 34.3
	DI = 21.5			DI = 332.5
	PI = 33.6			PI = 133.7

I figure the difference in Computing Index (CI) accounts for
emulation overhead.  The difference in Disk Index (DI) may
indicate that all of my C: drive fits into UNIX buffer cache.
The Performance Index (PI) indicates the composite throughput.

Anybody else with interesting performance stats?

						Martin Zam
						(201)564-2554