Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!nstar!larry
From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Performance in 486 EISA machines: ISC vs. SCO
Message-ID: <1991May23.181606.4628@nstar.rn.com>
Date: 23 May 91 18:16:06 GMT
References: <49397@ut-emx.uucp>
Organization: NSTAR, Indiana's BBS 219-289-0287/317-251-7391
Lines: 18

solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon) writes:

>The Personal Workstation review of ISC and SCO has an intriguing section
>in it:  "On the IOBench 2 disk, SCO Unix outperformed Interactive only on
>single-tasking reads.  Interactive had an advantage of 25 to 30 percent
>on the impotant random read/write test, and of several hundred percent on
>sequential writes."  SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT!?!??  Is this for real, or
>is this a typo?  We are quite interested in sequential writes, because

Nope - the ISC SCSI FFS is much, much faster than SCO's Acer FFS.

We started playing with the SVR4 FFS and it appears to be quite fast
as well - benchmarks coming soon!
-- 
      Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391
                         HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis 
                        regional UUCP mapping coordinator 
               {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}