Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!bruce
From: bruce@stride.Stride.COM (Bruce Robertson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: 98% in < 2s
Message-ID: <685@stride.Stride.COM>
Date: Mon, 5-Oct-87 00:22:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: stride.685
Posted: Mon Oct  5 00:22:14 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Oct-87 01:30:56 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8579@utzoo.UUCP> <6886@eddie.MIT.EDU> <1351@homxc.UUCP> <1634@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: bruce@stride.stride.com.UUCP (Bruce Robertson)
Organization: Stride Micro, Reno, NV
Lines: 16
Keywords: cost of bloated programs
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:2513 comp.unix.wizards:4692 comp.os.misc:267

In article <1634@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (John Haugh) writes:
>
>I benchmarked kernels at my last emoployer and noticed that even the big
>machines we tested (uVax, Plexus P/60's & P/75's, etc) didn't get past
>40 or 50 forks per second.  The little programs seem to cost more than
>the bigger ones in terms of forkability ...

That's odd, my Stride 600 Series (68020-based, System V kernel with
the copy-on-write version of fork) does just under 100 forks per
second.  Even my Stride 400 Series (same kernel, 68010-based) does 48
forks per second.
-- 

	Bruce Robertson
	bruce@stride.Stride.COM
	cbosgd!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!bruce