Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!llenroc!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!<UNAUTHENTICATED>+
From: Richard.Draves@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Mach RPC Throughput...
Message-ID: <4bsEGja00hsQI6K19M@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 91 17:30:23 GMT
References: <MORSE.91Mar14091659@quark.mpr.ca>,
	<63274@bbn.BBN.COM>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 18
In-Reply-To: <63274@bbn.BBN.COM>

> Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.mach: 15-Mar-91 Re: Mach RPC Throughput...
> Fletcher Kittredge@bbn.c (1629)

> The answer is that this is an example of comparing an old version of 
> piece of software with a new version of a competing package.  Given
> the dates cited in your article, the Mach RPC tested would be version
> 2.5 or lower.  For Mach 3.0, the RPC system was completely re-written
> by Richard Draves.  One of the results was a real increase in speed.
> You will be wanting to read the paper "A Revised IPC Interface", Richard
> Draves, Proceedings of the October 1990 "Machnix" Conference, Burlington
> Vt.


I rewrote the kernel IPC code.  I believe the Amoeba/Mach comparison was
looking at network RPC throughput.  We are looking at ways to improve
the performance of network RPCs for Mach 3.0.

Rich