Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:58:51 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903021556450.20721-100000@feral-gw> In-Reply-To: <99Mar3.083923est.40347@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Peter Jeremy wrote: > 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]. Yes. I actually played around with KENBUS for NetBSD but couldn't get it compiled since it seemed to depend on some libc calls not in NetBSD. There was a version of MUSBUS in use at Sun - and yes, MUSBUS is indeed quite old- but it's useful in that you get load stages for both context switching, IPC, and, to a lesser extend, disk I/O. There may or may not be bottlenecks intrinsic to MUSBUS, but I can assure you that it's a start. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9903021556450.20721-100000>