Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!boring!jack
From: jack@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Is ULTRIX-11 really slow?
Message-ID: <6410@boring.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 12:30:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.6410
Posted: Mon May 13 12:30:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 03:37:05 EDT
References: <821@unmvax.UUCP> <490@usl.UUCP>
Reply-To: jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Distribution: net
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 18
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL


In article <490@usl.UUCP> jih@usl.UUCP (Juha I. Heinanen) writes:
>Two/three years ago we used to run the predecessor of Ultrix-11, then
>called Unix V7m, on out PDP-11/34 and we found it was *much* slower than
>the European Unix Users Group port of the same thing.  We never figured
>out exactly why this was the case, but it must have something to with
>the way the kernel overlays are done.
I always read this remark about v7m, but I think it is just not
true. If you massage the overlaying by hand you can get a very
reasonable performance out of it. We're running an 11/34 with
10 users, quite comfortably (I should tell that we have an EMMU,
1Mb of mem, and a Capricorn on it, but still).

Also, if you're not satisfied with performance, you could hack
some things like XBUF mod, FIFO inode allocation, etc. in from the
EUUG distribution, and still have an overlay kernel.
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP
	The shell is my oyster.