Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!+ From: Rick.Rashid@cs.cmu.edu Newsgroups: comp.os.mach Subject: Re: Mach 3.0 Performance Message-ID: Date: 25 Jun 91 20:55:20 GMT References: <3102@fai.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 44 In-Reply-To: <3102@fai.UUCP> In looking at the numbers in Brian's paper I noted a couple of things: 1) The single application which is listed as having the greatest disparity in time (150 vs 92 seconds) is the remote Andrew benchmark. This is very deceptive because Mach 2.5 incorporates AFS 3.0 directly in the kernel (AFS is the remote file system being used) while there is no direct support for AFS in Mach 3.0. In Mach 3.0 we run a server program called Venus which implements an older version of the AFS interface. This older implementation still talks to current AFS servers, but it does so using the old protocol through a protocol converter. Performance of AFS access through Venus is thus particularly poor and not really indicative of any specific feature of Mach 3.0. (The reason Mach 3.0 uses Venus has to do with NFS/AFS licensing issues.) 2) The other tests indicated Mach 3.0 performance in the range of .73 to 1.64 of Mach 2.5 with the latex and linking applications, for example, running at .85 and the spelling checker at 1.64. I don't routinely get number for the DecStation, but I do have some older numbers for the Decstation Mach 3.0 vs. Ultrix (collected last year for USENIX). The numbers are presented as ratios of Ultrix to Mach 3.0 times (i.e. numbers below 1 are bad for 3.0, above 1 are good): Compilation benchmark: 1.23 Andrew benchmark: 1.01 Cached file reads: 1.60 Uncached reads: .90 Uncached writes: .88 For the Sun 3/60 I measured Mach 2.5 and Mach 3.0: Compilation: 1.04 Andrew: .98 (additional numbers are in the paper). I am currently compiling a set of performance number for the i386 which I will pass on in a message in the next few days. -Rick