Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
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!news.ysu.edu!odin.oar.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!bry
From: bry@netcom.com (Bryan Althaus)
Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison)
Message-ID: <bryDLA13C.MAL@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4cv8j1$59k@park.uvsc.edu> <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za> <4d3h2s$j3r@helena.MT.net> <4dfm6a$h5f@panix2.panix.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:50:00 GMT
Lines: 56
Sender: bry@netcom19.netcom.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2006 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2160 comp.unix.solaris:57487 comp.unix.aix:68915
Thor Lancelot Simon (tls@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <4d3h2s$j3r@helena.MT.net>,
: Nate Williams <nate@sneezy.sri.com> wrote:
: [deletia]
: >Now, I admit that having more standard include files is good, but I have
: >little use for a VM system which is a pig, and all the other niceties that
: >Slowlaris bought me.
: >
: >Many of the 'new' features on Slowlaris could have been ported to the
: >BSD kernel, but weren't for political reasons. Now, in 5 years, Slolaris
: >might get as fast as SunOS used to be, but that will be because it finally
: >has some time to mature and hardware will be an order of magnitude faster.
: Hell, if you look at the Usenix papers of a few years ago, it's pretty
: obvious that the 'new' features on Slowlaris were ported *from* the BSD
: kernel, and that developers at SUN were given pretty strict marching
: orders not to *ever* let any of the 4.1.3 "prototype" versions get outside
: the fence, probably because they'd make Slowlaris look, well, like shit.
: I'm particularly fond of the paper on the slab memory allocator, where the
: performance of the 4.4BSD, 4.1.3, and "slab" kernel allocators is compared
: _in a 4.1.3 kernel_, and great advantages are claimed for the new code --
: which then got saddled with running in Slowlaris 2.X and became part and
: parcel of one of the most notoriously sluggish VM systems ever.
The VM system has been overhauled.
Subject: Re: What's new in Solaris 2.5?
Date: 3 Jun 1995 08:13:14 GMT
Here's a brief summary of the high points:
[snip]
Performance Improvements:
Timesharing: dramatically improved due to low-level VM rewrite,
in-kernel telnet/rlogin support, per-processor kernel memory
allocation, and breakup of global locks in ufs, tmpfs and VM.
Pipes: new pipe implementation 5 times faster than 2.4.
Standard I/O: fread(3S) and fwrite(3S) 4 times faster than 2.4.
Kernel memory comsumption: reduced by roughly a megabyte on
most platforms (sun4m, sun4d, and i86pc).
[snip]
: Mind you, the SMP is nice, but I'm not convinced it's any better than SVR4MP,
: despite being a totally independent implementation. If SUN had had a clue,
: they would have bought Solbourne's code before they went under and managed
: not to lose so badly for years and years just for the "privilege" of running
: System V.