Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: XENIX VS Micoport
Message-ID: <9570@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: 16 Feb 88 20:03:32 GMT
References: <16217@watmath.waterloo.edu> <166@bhjat.UUCP> <366@igloo.UUCP> <434@cimcor.UUCP> <391@igloo.UUCP> <242@oracle.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Distribution: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 40
Keywords: Microport, XENIX, speed, profiler, sar

In article <242@oracle.UUCP> rbradbur@oracle.UUCP (Robert Bradbury) writes:
| [...]
| I'm not saying that XENIX is not faster than Microport, after all SCO/
| Microsoft has had 2-3 more years to refine the serial I/O port driver
| and hard disk interleave factors.  The fact that most XENIX development
	I have *never* heard of a problem with Xenix crashing because
someone was doing serial i/o. Until Microport 2.3, a number of people
(all three of the people I know who have it and dozens on the net) had
problems. I measured the serial throughput and the best I could get was
102cps at 1200 baud, system crashed at higher speeds.

| was done of VERY SLOW machines gave the developers an incentive to
| improve those features.  Now people have so much CPU power available
| to them that they rarely put themselves in an environment which degrades
| peformance sufficiently to provide an incentive to improve things.
	What Cray are you using? I have a *lot* of incentive to keep
things working well.
| [...]
| As these features are not available under Xenix (remember the Xenix
| kernel is based on System III) you have no assistance in locating
| the source of system bottlenecks.
	I'm not sure what the connection is... these tools seem to run
under Xenix if you have a source license. SCO didn't bundle them.
MicroPort didn't bundle acctcom. My understanding is that Xenix passed
all but six programs of SVVS (does anyone else have solid information
otherwise?) and since the SysV kernel is based on the SysIII kernel, I
think it's safe to assume that the MicroPort kernel is SysIII based,
also.
| [...]
| Should we develop a set of programs which can measure these things?
| I'm willing to provide the database maintenance for the results.
	A large number of people have measured these things, the trick
is to pick the benchmark that says what you want it to. Not that what
you propose is without merit, but the only way it would be valid would
be to run both operating systems on the same machine. I am a believer
that "identical hardware isn't."
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me