Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 13:07:12 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies) Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NT an 4 processors Message-ID: <199609282007.NAA03204@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199609280818.KAA25068@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> from "Christoph Kukulies" at Sep 28, 96 10:18:02 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sorry for the subject - I know you are all working hard on FreeMSD SMP > Someone here is praising NT and having it run on a 4 processor board. > > Is there some striking argument against doing multiprocessing under NT? > > My arguments are always: > > 1) NT doesn't have remote administrability (not telnet service) > > 2) NT doesn't have to plethora of tools like shells, networking tools. > NFS, etc. > > 3) NT doesn't have the good support that a free OS has - for whatever reasons. > > 4) NT costs license fees to Bill Gates. > > Any more cons? The ActiveX Template Library (ATL) and other developement tools under NT do not support the "free threading" model necessary to take advantage of the extra processors. Microsoft threading models: o Single threaded Only one thread may enter the COM server o Apartment model Multiple threads per serve, but only one object per thread; thread is dedicated o Rental model [available as Alpha software to Microsoft partners ] [model used by "Viper" framework, which has not yet been deployed] Objects are still non-reentrant -- multiple threads per server, multiple threads per object, but Viper framework must be used to maintain state and lock entrancy. o Free threading [ available if you disassemble Microsoft code and write your code in assembly as well (questionable legality) ] Multiple threads, object multiply entrant -- this is "good" threading. Curently supported only for hand-crafted code, generally in assembly language. DAO (Data Access Objects) are not thread reeentrant (read the VC++ 4.2 documentation on MFC for DAO and other objects). It is impossible to produce an ActiveX container object unless you are Microsoft (In the online documentation in VC++ 4.2, search for "ActiveX", and note the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the first query hit you get back). Therefore, if you are a software company, you can produce plug-in modules for Microsoft software, but can't plug modules (ActiveX/COM servers) into your own software. Congradulations, you are now a second source value added software house for Microsoft. > pros: > > 1) NT was designed for SMP resp. is SMP capable out of the box. It's SMP capable out of the box, anyway. The scheduler design is questionably serializing. > The wind is blowing into my face now here - It's getting > harder to withstand all these arguments based on precalculations > that NT will become the future OS even in the scientific computing > world. Former VMS crews at CERN are already weaponing for taking over > the computing world with NT. And I'm only waiting for the day when > CERN says: "We are only developing under NT and our CERNlib is > only maintained under NT". NT Workstation will certainly replace Window 95 in 2-3 years, tops. However, there are severe licensing restrictions on use of NT Workstation for providing services, and the NT Server software is prohibitively expensive. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609282007.NAA03204>