Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!fai!georgeb From: georgeb@fai.UUCP (George Bosworth) Newsgroups: comp.os.mach Subject: Mach 3.0 Performance Message-ID: <3102@fai.UUCP> Date: 24 Jun 91 20:15:37 GMT Reply-To: georgeb@fai.com (George Bosworth) Lines: 47 In an article in the ASPLOS-IV Proceedings (full citation later), researchers from U. of Washington published a side-by-side performance comparison of Mach 2.5 and Mach 3.0. They averaged three runs of seven diverse applications running on a MIPS R3000-based DECstation 5000/200 with 24 MB of memory. I condense their tabulation of results by adding the applications together for a few of their measured items: Measured Item Mach 2.5 Mach 3.0 ========================== ======== ======== Elapsed time (seconds) 307 416 Address space context switches 10,740 215,811 Kernel-level thread context 18,255 248,274 switches System calls 90,515 278,771 Kernel mode TLB misses 439,067 3,867,602 Here are two questions: 1. The authors argue that RISC hardware and microkernel OS designs are out of kilter, and deliberately chose a RISC machine for the Mach comparisons. Are there similar timing runs for Mach 2.5 and Mach 3.0 on CISC machines? 2. Are there any reasons to believe that more current versions of Mach 3.0 have improved in performance? If so, are there published performance runs? Full citation: Thomas E. Anderson, Henry M. Levy, Brian N. Bershad, and Edward D Lazowska, "The Interaction of Architecture and Operating System Design", in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, April 1991, pages 108-120. The proceedings are available from ACM by order number 556910. George George H. Bosworth georgeb@fai.com or Fujitsu America B-2-7 uunet!fai.com!georgeb 3055 Orchard Drive San Jose CA 95134 1-408/432-1300 x5033