Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!pt!vlsi.cs.cmu.edu!gwu
From: gwu@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (George Wu)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Mach, the new standard?
Message-ID: <1072@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 17:00:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: vlsi.1072
Posted: Thu Aug  6 17:00:39 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 14:07:55 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 28
Keywords: Mach
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:1769 comp.unix.wizards:3597 comp.os.misc:80


      I benched Mach on the MicroVax and RT using Jan Stubbs' iocall. The
results are below.

MicroVAXII			4.3BSD+NFS (wisconsin)	63.8
MicroVaxII			Mach4.3			61.7	(*)
MicroVax II			Ultrix/32-m V1.2	53.4

IBM PC/RT 170MHz		?			60
IBM PC/RT			4.2A (4.2BSD)		42.8
IBM PC/RT (???)			Mach			56.1


* Actually, I noticed this was already in Jan's last post of iocall results. I
ran it myself and got something close to it.


     This doesn't look all that terribly impressive as far as the RT goes, but
I'm not sure what the clock rate is. As for the MicroVax II, it looks slightly
better than 4.3 with NFS (we use RFS), but worse than standard Ultrix. All in
all, I'm don't think Mach is anything to get excited about, at least not on an
RT or MicroVax.

     Not being one heavily involved with Mach, not even as a user, I'm only
slightly familiar with it. Are there any other advantages of Mach over Unix
and other operating systems? What about for multi-processors.

							George