Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!raybed2!rayssd!jarsun1!drd!mark
From: mark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Response from DBMS Editor in Chief, Kevin Strehlo
Summary: read the whole article
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.152833.3214@drd.com>
Date: 24 Apr 91 15:28:33 GMT
Sender: Kevin Strehlo <0003791961@mcimail.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: DBMS Magazine
Lines: 35


--begin included text
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 23:54 GMT
To: "mark@DRD.Com" <mark@DRD.Com>
Subject: Reply to a remark
Message-Id: <32910422235423/0003791961NB2EM@mcimail.com>

We received the following comment via Internet on a story in our April issue:

  ...A point that some might find of significance in this benchmark is that
  the machine used was a dual CPU multiprocessor.  The operating system
  OS/2 does not support symmetric multi-processing.  The SCO UNIX does.
  Now the people at DBMS wonder why UNIX is faster...

Apparently the person who wrote that remark missed the following
part of the article (page 47):

  "SCO UNIX also has the advantage of symmetrical multiprocessing.
  LAN Manager 2.0's multiprocessing option allowed the LAN I/O
  and file system code to be dedicated to one processor while the
  rest of OS/2 and the database server ran on the other.  Santa
  Cruz Operation's MPX option for UNIX 3.2.2 was not nearly so
  lopsided.  While all IRQ handling would sit on processor 1
  because of a SystemPro quirk, all other processes would be
  assigned to the less busy of the SystemPro's two 33 MHz 486
  processors."
  
We don't mind criticism.  We just like it to be accurate.

Kevin Strehlo
DBMS Magazine
--end encluded text
-- 
mark@drd.com
mark@jnoc.go.jp  $B!J%^!<%/!&%i%l%s%9!K(B  Nihil novum sub solem