Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison)
Date: 16 Jan 1996 18:14:10 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 49
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4dgpti$rnv@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4d43bt$es8@park.uvsc.edu> <4d5vhg$38p@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <4dbun0$j2f@park.uvsc.edu> <4de3ml$naq@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:1851 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:1982 comp.unix.solaris:56686 comp.unix.aix:68233
thurlow@peyto.eng.sun.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote:
] In article <4dbun0$j2f@park.uvsc.edu>,
] Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote:
]
] [that SunOS 4.x is better than SunOS 5.x because:]
] >8) NFS is reliable, does not violate protocol specification.
]
] and further states:
]
] >] What do you mean by this? In Solaris 2.x as well
] >] as SunOS 4.x all server update operations are synchronous.
] >] Clients employ write behind in both OSes.
]
] >Server caching, which is not on by default for 5.x.
]
] This is misinformation, as far as I can see, and I invite the
] poster to be clear and specific about this. Sun has at no time
] enabled asynchronous writes on the server by default, unlike some
] other Unix vendors, and we consider that a good thing.
If this is true (it is disabled on the machine I can get access
to, and I rememebr specifically disabling it -- it may have been
enables by one of three other people), then I will retract my
reliability claim made on the basis of assuming server cacheing.
I'll assume that it's true, since my main exposure to SVR4 is
by way of USL, and I have intentionally avoided Solaris after
my investigation of it at the 2.3 level. This may or may not
weaken the "at no time" argument, above.
Stipulating this, however, I once again request proof that the
5.x implementation is higher performance than the 4.x, and
further that any performance difference is not simply the result
of the 4.x driver's misue of the Lance buffers, as described in
the Solaris 1.x->2.x upgrade/release notes.
I find anything other than a marginal performance claim to be
difficult to support without resorting to server caching or
some other "speedup" technique which requires violation of
the protocol spec (like the 4.x and 5.x client caching).
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.