Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au!news.apana.org.au!cantor.edge.net.au!news.teragen.com.au!news.access.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!fido.news.demon.net!demon!news.unisource.nl!news.tip.nl!news From: Emile van Bergen <t477495@tip.nl> Subject: Re: User-space file systems. (Re: Linux vs BSD) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: almere45.pop.tip.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Mista Secret <Norri@WHOOP.dame.de> Message-ID: <331C995D.23D6F3DE@tip.nl> Sender: news@tip.nl (The News User) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: The Internet Plaza References: <5e6qd5$ivq@cynic.portal.ca> <5evsnm$1200@usenet1y.prodigy.net> <5f283t$667@cynic.portal.ca> <6S9$NF8dq1B@whoop.dame.dame.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:51:25 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.28 i586) Lines: 43 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:162784 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6204 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2714 comp.os.linux.networking:70870 comp.os.linux.setup:100966 Mista Secret wrote: > > ## Reply to User: cjs@cynic.portal.ca > ## Reference: Re: User-space file systems. (Re: Linux vs BSD) > ## From date: 26.02.97 > ## NewsGroup: /COMP/OS/LINUX/MISC > ------------------Original message as follows...------------- > > > >WHile there is a performance gain available by giving the CPU > > >to the NFS daemon quickly, the context switch is not a problem, > > >while the scheduling of other processes first may be. > > > A protection switch occurs every time data crosses the kernel-userland > > boundary. In this case, that means approximately four protection > > switches for every NFS packet. It doesn't matter how much CPU you're > > using; the protection switches are slow and expensive. In fact, > > the less CPU you use the worse the problem looks, since that > > protection switch becomes a much greater proportion of the cost of > > running the daemon, and moving it into the kernel will save all > > that much more. > > It's all very fine to say that the extra CPU utilisation on a > > Pentium is not a big bother. But what happens when you upgrade to > > a 100 Mbps network? Or Gigabit Ethernet? > > Don t worry. Until then we will all have the 2GigHz Pentium. ;-) Don't you see?! That philosophy, for which the guy(s) at M$ should be rewarded with the "acme reward for wrong thinking", is the cause for 1. the 640K boundary, 2. the inefficiency of Windows when it comes to resource utilization, and lots of other problems that makes you want to buy a new computer every year! The Lazy Programmers-philosophy, that's what I call it! I'm glad that Linux is an OS that proves that you DON'T need 16 MB of ram and a pentium ALONE to run just the OS! (I didn't even mention APPS!) Please, lets keep it that way, and don't try to kill a performance/efficiency discussion, however theoretical it may seem to you! You wouldn't want Linux to end up like the M$ OS'ses, do you?? Just my 2c... Greetings, Emile van Bergen (t477495@tip.nl)