Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!batcomputer!llenroc!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!mprgate.mpr.ca!newshost!morse From: morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) Newsgroups: comp.os.mach Subject: Mach RPC Throughput... Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 91 14:16:59 GMT Sender: news@mprgate.mpr.ca Distribution: comp Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada. Lines: 33 Now that we have been throroughly reminded of some of the differences between Amoeba and Mach, I have a question regarding the throughput of the Mach RPC. First a bit of background... Peterson, et al, published a paper in the May 1990 issue of IEEE Computer entitled "The x-kernel: A platform for accessing Internet resources." In that paper, a number of RPC throughput figures were given for x-kernel, Mach, and several other OSes. (I don't have it handy right now to give a full list, however.) Tanenbaum, et al, published a paper in the December 1990 issue of Communications of the ACM, entitled "Experiences with the Amoeba Distributed operating System." In that paper, RPC throughput figures were given for Amoeba, Cedar, x-kernel, V, Topax, Sprite, and Mach. (The figure for Mach was obtained from Peterson's paper.) The throughput for Mach is between 3 and 10 times slower than that of the other OSes. My question is simple, though its answer likely is not: Why is the throughput of the Mach RPC so much slower than the other OSes? Are the respective RPCs different enough that throughput is a meaningless "apples and oranges" comparision? Has the Mach RPC simply not been optimized as heavily as that of the other OSes? Thanks. -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail: morse@quark.mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | quark.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net