Xref: utzoo comp.unix.aux:52 comp.unix.xenix:1884
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!tekbspa!joe
From: joe@tekbspa.UUCP (Joe Angelo)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: A/UX performance
Message-ID: <171@tekbspa.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 88 03:53:25 GMT
References: <1837@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems, San Jose, CA.
Lines: 33

in article <1837@ssc-vax.UUCP>, benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) says:
> 
> As can be seen the low-end 3/50 outperforms with relative ease the
> Mac II. Of course, this is not the whole story.  These are the I/O
> benchmarks. ...

I've yet had time to run real bmarks on our MacII A/UX, but from just
tinkering and fussing around ... i've can instinctively say that
MacII A/UX is horribly slow in regards to process switching and disk
utilitzation in ''init 2'' (ie: when more then 3 procs. are running;
I betcha those Apple bmarks were compiled in init 1 as well!! Strangely
enough, I find the performance of an NFS mount point (from a SUN 3/280
to a MacII) rather acceptable. Why do I have a feeling that them
apples and oranges (emun) programmers did all of thier work
via NFS? (I usually test NFS perf. by dumping an NFS mounted dir
struct to /dev/null on our main machine; yes, i take into account
the current network load.)

I've only had A/UX up (here) for the past day and already have
a six page ``feature'' list. This entire A/UX thing has really
blown my mind. There is a VERY strange mixture of OS's and
commands and a large number of commands don't generate the output
one would expect. 

This is MY personal opp. -> I'm not impressed Apple.  But who cares?
Surely I won't blindly buy 300 of them for some phantom accounting
department...


-- 
"I'm trying             Joe Angelo -- Senior Systems Engineer/Systems Manager
 to think               at Teknekron Software Systems, Palo Alto 415-325-1025
 but nothing
 happens!"              uunet!tekbspa!joe -OR- tekbspa!joe@uunet.uu.net