Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr!tektronix!psueea!parsely!sopwith!snoopy
From: snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: performance-sapping OSes (was: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size)
Message-ID: <213@sopwith.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 89 23:41:02 GMT
References: <922@aber-cs.UUCP> <8081@killer.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 25

In article <8081@killer.Dallas.TX.US> elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) writes:

|> on the few 68030 machines around (Next, Macs, Suns), it seems that one
|> statement I have read (68030 == 68020+10/15%) is quite reasonable
|
|Figures I've seen indicate about a 20-30% improvement. Note that
|performance gains can be sapped by high-overhead operating systems
|(e.g. Mach on the NeXT) or by anemic memory systems (e.g. Mac IIx).
|You've benchmarked 68030-based Suns??? Considering that they only
|recently introduced them, you've been working fast! (the Sun's got
|about the same overhead as a NeXT anyhow, except it doesn't have the
|object-oriented layer to the user interface). 

I'm curious as to why you say that Mach is "high overhead" when it
has better performance than 4.3 BSD.  15% faster compiling the kernel
on a VAX, according to the article in the August '86 _Unix_Review_.
Better/newer numbers welcome.

    _____     						  .-----.
   /_____\    Snoopy					./  RIP	 \.
  /_______\   qiclab!sopwith!snoopy			|  	  |
    |___|     parsely!sopwith!snoopy			| tekecs  |
    |___|     sun!nosun!illian!sopwith!snoopy		|_________|

		"I *am* the next man!"  -Indy