Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!hubcap!eos!eugene
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: Multi-processor UNIX et. al.
Message-ID: <5202@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 89 12:09:21 GMT
Sender: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 27
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

In article <5190@hubcap.clemson.edu> ginosko!tikku@uunet.UU.NET (Sanjay Tikku) writes:
>What articles/research/papers/studies ...:-) etc. exists which compares
>different UNIX versions (System V and BSD) as to their suitability as a 
>operating system for parallel processing? Also, what other information exists
>comparing MACH to versions of multi-processor UNIX???

Not a scientific study: but it's an important comment, see Steve Job's
interview about using Mach as on OS in the latest issue of CACM.
In summary he says you have two choices: 1) use unix or 2) "roll your own."
If you choose the latter, good luck.  There is a ton of information on
both.

>We are trying to determine if its a good idea to take one of the available
>UNIX versions and change it to a multi-processor version to run on our 
>symmetric multi-processor machines or to start off with MACH as a base. In
>addition we also have to support parallel processing.

Longish signature follows "Type 'n' now"

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.