Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 21:41:40 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone tried HURD yet? Message-ID: <199609260241.VAA21054@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.AUX.3.94.960925180852.2164B-100000@covina.lightside.com> from "Jake Hamby" at Sep 25, 96 06:22:53 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If anyone else has tried HURD, I'd be interested in your opinions. I'm > also curious if anyone is seriously using Lites. As an aside, I currently > have _five_ OS's on four partitions of two SCSI hard drives of a single > 486: Windows 95, NT, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris/x86, _all_ accessible > from BootEasy. Adding HURD would make a grand total of six. Is this some > sort of world record? :-) > I had recently tried out Lites (during one of my benchmarking runs.) It is certainly an achievement in technology (IMO.) However, the performance of certain ops was quite slow. I passed around some performance numbers to -core, but have lost my harddrive with the results. Please don't take my performance comments as putting down the Mach or Lites projects -- otherwise they are very interesting -- but OS perf under certain circumstances was very far behind FreeBSD/Linux. There are many reasons for using the Mach based OSes, but perf is probably not going to be one of them. In particular I remember fork/exec as being maybe 10x-20x slower... Perhaps someone in -core could forward my results that I had measured? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609260241.VAA21054>