From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Mar  2 13:51:13 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DF614DAD
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  2 Mar 1999 13:51:09 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au)
Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40347>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:39:23 +1100
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:50:43 +1100
From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au>
Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update
To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Message-Id: <99Mar3.083923est.40347@border.alcanet.com.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> wrote:
>Would the problem manifest itself under increasing load? One thing I'm
>mulling doing is to try and move forward musbus or it's equivalent

MUSBUS is now quite old - I believe it was developed around 1981.  I
have a paper Ken McDonell presented at AUUG'91 when he discussed some
of its shortcomings at that time [and there are probably more now].

I've also heard him state (possibly during that presentation) that
MUSBUS was designed to benchmark systems around 1 MIPS (ie a VAX
11/780), and results obtained on a `current' (ie 5-10 years old now)
system probably reflect bottlenecks in MUSBUS, rather than the system
under test.

[Note that a later developent of MUSBUS - KENBUS - formed part of the
SPEC's SDM (System Developent Multitasking) 1.x benchmark suite].

Peter


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message