Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:37:19 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM (Ron G. Minnich) Cc: terry@lambert.org, dyson@freefall.freebsd.org, lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, waa@aurora.cis.upenn.edu, deraadt@theos.com, chuck@maria.wustl.edu Subject: Re: larry: you might want to add this to lmbench (but i'm not sure) Message-ID: <199511102237.OAA01342@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951110144904.13530K-100000@morse> from "Ron G. Minnich" at Nov 10, 95 02:55:56 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Ok, i'll try to explain it once again for some folks who don't seem to > read either the complete message or the code attached. > 1) this is measuring something i need to measure for work i'm doing > 2) the numbers surprise me > 3) i thought it might or might not make a performance measure, but > was not sure. I pointed out it was not a "pure" measurement > of lookup time, but was correlated with it. I didn't realize how > pathological BSD behavior was in this one case, and yes I agree > this is NOT A COMMON CASE, OK? > > I can see why so many people get sick of the bsd discussion lists: > grown-ups seem to be in short supply. hey that's not fare! I think john's answer is very valid and I think the questions regarding why you think this is an important thing to measure are valid.. I would have considered "time to detect AND HANDLE an erroneous syscall" one of the least importand times.. As this is important thing for you, I'm naturally curious of the application that needs this, because I'm trying to work out whether I need to re-evaluate my priorities in this... > > For the record, solaris is 4x the bsd performance in this case. What's > interesting is > 1) solaris has a far better vm archictecture than *bsd or linux (i've > been able to accomplish things via sunos 4/solaris kernel that bsd can not > even approach doing) such as what? (not saying you haven't,.. I just am really curious about WHAT.) > 2) solaris does indeed run on smp's, and *bsd does not yes but the vm system is not the hold-up.. it's been designed with that in mind.. > > I don't know how that squares with some of the earlier comments. I'm sure > that the god-like beings on this list won't hesitate to tell me :-) I know that some people are quick to reply, but I'm more than a littl hurt by this.. > > ron > > Ron Minnich |Like a knife through Daddy's heart: > rminnich@sarnoff.com |"Don't make fun of Windows, daddy! It takes care > (609)-734-3120 | of all my files and it's reliable and I like it". > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511102237.OAA01342>