Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!
ucthpx!itu1.sun.ac.za!arichfld
From: arich...@cs.sun.ac.za (Antony Richfield)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Date: 19 Nov 1994 05:33:00 GMT
Organization: University of Stellenbosch
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.232.212.20
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]

I have heard that Linux performs miserably against various free BSD
forms running around ... how much of this is true/still valid/negligible
and so on ... any comment? insights? data? updates?

--
Antony Richfield at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
GAT d? H s+:- g+ p?+ !au a22 w+++ v?*(+) C+ U? P-- L 3 E- N++ K+(---) W-- M-- !V
-po+ Y+ t !5 !j R++ G'' !tv b++ D+ B? e+(*)>++++ u**(*) h*(-) f--(?)@ r-- !n !y*
-----------------------------------GEEK CODE 2.1-------------------------------

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
rasputin.ncsa.uiuc.edu!libor
From: li...@rasputin.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Libor)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Date: 20 Nov 1994 06:22:38 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rasputin.ncsa.uiuc.edu

In article <3ak2mc$...@itu1.sun.ac.za>, arich...@cs.sun.ac.za 
(Antony Richfield) writes:
|> I have heard that Linux performs miserably against various free BSD
|> forms running around ... how much of this is true/still valid/negligible
|> and so on ... any comment? insights? data? updates?

I know you asked about free BSD, but I haven't used it in a year. I do
know that BSDI (a commercial unix for Intel) does context switches
much faster the Linux, I saw a listing of the speed of context switches
for a large amount of machines. In some cases Linux took an order of
magnitude longer then some work stations. Times where in cycles, so
processor clocking had no effect on the results. However I saw this
about half a year ago, so Linux may have improved. From personal
experience, I would say that at least BSDI is noticably quicker then
Linux, but you get what you pay for. Don't get me wrong I think 
Linux is great, aand I'm very happy it exists, but like most things
in the computer world there is room for improvment.

-Libor  Anarchist, Atheist, Research Programmer

P.S. I saw the list on comp.arch might want to check if anyone there
     has it.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Message-ID: <CzoJzA.8F5@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za> <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 17:45:09 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <3ampve$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> li...@rasputin.ncsa.uiuc.edu 
(Libor) writes:
>I know you asked about free BSD, but I haven't used it in a year. I do
>know that BSDI (a commercial unix for Intel) does context switches
>much faster the Linux, I saw a listing of the speed of context switches
>for a large amount of machines. In some cases Linux took an order of
>magnitude longer then some work stations. Times where in cycles, so

The actual context switch isnt too bad. The two problems are the scheduler
algorithm and the syscall setup time. People are working on cleaning these
up for 1.3.x. At the moment its one glaring area where most unices perform
better than Linux. Of course the QNX people will happily reel out their
benchmark to trash everyone 8)

Alan

-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!ub4b!EU.net!uunet!
heifetz.msen.com!zib-berlin.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!news
From: nic...@prz.tu-berlin.de (Juergen Nickelsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Date: 23 Nov 1994 18:39:17 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany.
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3b01sg$t43@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za> <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<CzoJzA.8F5@info.swan.ac.uk>
Reply-To: nic...@cs.tu-berlin.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: toftum.prz.tu-berlin.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-reply-to: iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk's message of Tue, 22 Nov 1994 17:45:09 GMT

In article <CzoJzA....@info.swan.ac.uk> iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan
Cox) writes:

> The actual context switch isnt too bad. The two problems are the scheduler
> algorithm and the syscall setup time. People are working on cleaning these
> up for 1.3.x. At the moment its one glaring area where most unices perform
> better than Linux. Of course the QNX people will happily reel out their
> benchmark to trash everyone 8)

This is getting more and more technical and thus more and more
interesting. What I now *really* would like to see are the *figures*
for all this (time of context switch, scheduler overhead, syscall
setup time, perhaps more). Not opinions, but real numbers, processor
cycles (of the same processor, of course) preferred.

So what are these, for, say, BSDI, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Unixware, SCO,
Linix, QNX?  Any *real* *data* is greatly appreciated.

[Hmm, this is perhaps not much of a folklore issue. But it may well be
one in a few years when we are all running plan9 or WindozeNT. :-) ]

--
Juergen Nickelsen

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!
sunserver.insinc.net!cuugnet!wooga!camz
From: c...@wooga.cuug.ab.ca (Martin Zimmerman)
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za> <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> 
<3b01sg$t43@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Organization: Camz Enterprises
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 01:52:24 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Message-ID: <Czr17D.5LE@wooga.cuug.ab.ca>
Lines: 52

Juergen Nickelsen (nic...@prz.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
> In article <CzoJzA....@info.swan.ac.uk> iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan
> Cox) writes:

> > up for 1.3.x. At the moment its one glaring area where most unices perform
> > better than Linux. Of course the QNX people will happily reel out their
> > benchmark to trash everyone 8)

Actually, Linux does *quite* well for context switching, QNX still beats it
though :-)  The benchmark I used was actually originally written for a SUN
workstation and is pretty portable across platforms.  I have run the test
on DEC OSF/1 AXP machines, SUN Sparc boxes, HP 9000 boxes, as well as some
machines running QNX and linux.  Here are the results:

sun (sparc20)           11.00 secs,  9.09/millisec 122 microsec/switch
dec                     13.64 secs,  7.33/millisec 136 microsec/switch
hp                      15.25 secs,  6.56/millisec 152 microsec/switch
cuug486 (linux)         16.29 secs,  6.14/millisec 163 microsec/switch
sun (sparc2)            23.96 secs,  4.17/millisec 240 microsec/switch
ibm                     68.67 secs,  1.46/millisec 687 microsec/switch

qnx 4.21 [486/33]        9.56 secs, 10.46/millisec  96 microsec/switch
linux    [486DX2/50]    13.87 secs,  7.21/millisec 139 microsec/switch
qnx 4.21 [386/40]       14.97 secs,  6.68/millisec 150 microsec/switch

The machines are a Sparc20 running solaris, a DEC 3300 AXP running
OSF/1, and HP 9000/415 running HP-UX, a 486/33 (I think) running Linux
(not sure which version), a Sparc2 running SunOS, and an *old* IBM
RS/6000 running AIX.  These are machines that together make up the
network at CUUG.  

More information on the context switch used as well as source are
available on my home page: http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~zimmerm/ for
those of you interested.  If you run the benchmark on your machine,
please send me the results.

> So what are these, for, say, BSDI, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Unixware, SCO,
> Linix, QNX?  Any *real* *data* is greatly appreciated. 

The scheduling algorithm *IS* important as well.  QNX offers three
types of scheduling that the task can select from.  I don't have the
details on the overhead of an interrupt and such, so hopefully Dan H
at QSSL will jump in and provide that info.

Cheers,
Camz.

-- 
Martin Zimmerman - Camz Enterprises - QNX Programming & Consulting
   WWW: http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~zimmerm/
 email: c...@wooga.cuug.ab.ca      Keeper of the QNX FAQ.
finger: zimm...@www.cuug.ab.ca     Work in realtime - work in QNX.

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!
ucthpx!itu1.sun.ac.za!arichfld
From: arich...@cs.sun.ac.za (Antony Richfield)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Date: 24 Nov 1994 13:30:35 GMT
Organization: University of Stellenbosch
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <3b24hr$7os@itu1.sun.ac.za>
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za> <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> 
<3b01sg$t43@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <Czr17D.5LE@wooga.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.232.212.20
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]

Martin Zimmerman (c...@wooga.cuug.ab.ca) wrote:
: Juergen Nickelsen (nic...@prz.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
: > > better than Linux. Of course the QNX people will happily reel out their
: > > benchmark to trash everyone 8)

: Actually, Linux does *quite* well for context switching, QNX still beats it
: though :-)  The benchmark I used was actually originally written for a SUN
: workstation and is pretty portable across platforms.  I have run the test
: on DEC OSF/1 AXP machines, SUN Sparc boxes, HP 9000 boxes, as well as some
: machines running QNX and linux.  Here are the results:

: sun (sparc20)           11.00 secs,  9.09/millisec 122 microsec/switch
: dec                     13.64 secs,  7.33/millisec 136 microsec/switch
: hp                      15.25 secs,  6.56/millisec 152 microsec/switch
: cuug486 (linux)         16.29 secs,  6.14/millisec 163 microsec/switch
: sun (sparc2)            23.96 secs,  4.17/millisec 240 microsec/switch
: ibm                     68.67 secs,  1.46/millisec 687 microsec/switch

: qnx 4.21 [486/33]        9.56 secs, 10.46/millisec  96 microsec/switch
: linux    [486DX2/50]    13.87 secs,  7.21/millisec 139 microsec/switch
: qnx 4.21 [386/40]       14.97 secs,  6.68/millisec 150 microsec/switch

: The machines are a Sparc20 running solaris, a DEC 3300 AXP running
: OSF/1, and HP 9000/415 running HP-UX, a 486/33 (I think) running Linux
: (not sure which version), a Sparc2 running SunOS, and an *old* IBM
: RS/6000 running AIX.  These are machines that together make up the
: network at CUUG.  

: More information on the context switch used as well as source are
: available on my home page: http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~zimmerm/ for
: those of you interested.  If you run the benchmark on your machine,
: please send me the results.

: > So what are these, for, say, BSDI, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Unixware, SCO,
: > Linix, QNX?  Any *real* *data* is greatly appreciated. 

: The scheduling algorithm *IS* important as well.  QNX offers three
: types of scheduling that the task can select from.  I don't have the
: details on the overhead of an interrupt and such, so hopefully Dan H
: at QSSL will jump in and provide that info.

Thank you very much, sir!  this data I will be examining closely.

--
Antony Richfield at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
GAT d? H s+:- g+ p?+ !au a22 w+++ v?*(+) C+ U? P-- L 3 E- N++ K+(---) W-- M-- !V
-po+ Y+ t !5 !j R++ G'' !tv b++ D+ B? e+(*)>++++ u**(*) h*(-) f--(?)@ r-- !n !y*
-----------------------------------GEEK CODE 2.1-------------------------------

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!
sgigate.sgi.com!fido.asd.sgi.com!slovax!lm
From: l...@slovax.engr.sgi.com (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Date: 26 Nov 1994 19:50:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3b83j3$e3v@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za> <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> 
<3b01sg$t43@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <Czr17D.5LE@wooga.cuug.ab.ca>
Reply-To: l...@slovax.engr.sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: slovax.engr.sgi.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]


I believe this is the code that I wrote.  It would be nice if you didn't
use it or post numbers from it any more because it includes more
than just context switching time, it also includes the signal overhead.

I've written a new and improved one that is quite a bit more accurate -
still not perfect, but a lot closer.

You can get it in comp.benchmarks, I just posted something called lmbench
which includes the new ctx switching code.

: Actually, Linux does *quite* well for context switching, QNX still beats it
: though :-)  The benchmark I used was actually originally written for a SUN
: workstation and is pretty portable across platforms.  
--
---
Larry McVoy			(415) 390-1804			 l...@sgi.com

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!
sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!fido.asd.sgi.com!slovax!lm
From: l...@slovax.engr.sgi.com (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Date: 26 Nov 1994 19:54:04 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <3b83os$e3v@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <3ak2mc$spo@itu1.sun.ac.za> <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> 
<3b01sg$t43@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: l...@slovax.engr.sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: slovax.engr.sgi.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Juergen Nickelsen (nic...@prz.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
: This is getting more and more technical and thus more and more
: interesting. What I now *really* would like to see are the *figures*
: for all this (time of context switch, scheduler overhead, syscall
: setup time, perhaps more). Not opinions, but real numbers, processor
: cycles (of the same processor, of course) preferred.

: So what are these, for, say, BSDI, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Unixware, SCO,
: Linix, QNX?  Any *real* *data* is greatly appreciated. 


See comp.benchmarks for source.


                    L M B E N C H  1 . 0   S U M M A R Y
                    ------------------------------------

            Processor, Processes - times in microseconds
            --------------------------------------------
Host                 OS  Mhz    Null    Null  Simple /bin/sh Mmap 2-proc 8-proc
                             Syscall Process Process Process  lat  ctxsw  ctxsw
--------- ------------- ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- ------ ------
rs6000            AIX 2   62      23    2.0K    7.3K     23K 3817     20     32
seahorse  HP-UX A.09.03   99      14    3.6K   10.1K     18K  116     25     29
snake     HP-UX A.09.01   66      21    2.6K    5.7K     17K  156     47     55
IP22           IRIX 5.3  198      11    3.1K    8.0K     19K  260     40     38
pentium    Linux 1.1.54   91       3    3.3K   15.4K     49K   33     66     94
alpha         OSF1 V2.1  182      13    4.8K   16.1K     43K  172     25     42
ss20.50       SunOS 5.4   50       9   10.7K   57.5K    113K  130     54     85
ss20.61       SunOS 5.4   61       7    8.0K   45.8K     87K  104     37     52

            *Local* Communication latencies in microseconds
            -----------------------------------------------
Host                 OS  Pipe       UDP    RPC/     TCP    RPC/
                                            UDP             TCP
--------- ------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
rs6000            AIX 2     143     385     820     498    1054
seahorse  HP-UX A.09.03     193     244     832     262     812
snake     HP-UX A.09.01     296     403    1195     367    1142
IP22           IRIX 5.3     131     313     671     278     641
pentium    Linux 1.1.54     157     658    1030    1164    1591
alpha         OSF1 V2.1     185     404     718     428     851
ss20.50       SunOS 5.4     194     590     935     560    1196
ss20.61       SunOS 5.4     150     414     622     335     784

            *Local* Communication bandwidths in megabytes/second
            ----------------------------------------------------
Host                 OS Pipe  TCP  File   Mmap  Bcopy  Bcopy  Mem   Mem
                                  reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
rs6000            AIX 2   34  6.0   76.1   63.0     81    120   99   169
seahorse  HP-UX A.09.03   38 35.2   44.7   32.1     25     31   49    52
snake     HP-UX A.09.01   19 17.8   34.4   22.3     22     24   45    39
IP22           IRIX 5.3   34 22.1   32.3   43.7     32     31   69    66
pentium    Linux 1.1.54   13  2.4    9.8    4.7     18     18   48    32
alpha         OSF1 V2.1   32 12.1   39.4   22.7     39     41   76    78
ss20.50       SunOS 5.4   11 11.0   22.9   30.0     26     31   80    62
ss20.61       SunOS 5.4   24 19.5   31.0   30.7     23     24   59    40

	    Memory latencies in nanoseconds
            (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
            --------------------------------------------
Host                 OS   Mhz  L1 $   L2 $    Main mem    TLB    Guesses
--------- -------------   ---  ----   ----    --------    ---    -------
rs6000            AIX 2    61    15    229         247    776    No L2 cache?
seahorse  HP-UX A.09.03    98    10     10         393    481    No L1 cache?
snake     HP-UX A.09.01    65    15     15         378   1051    No L1 cache?
IP22           IRIX 5.3   197    10     76        1018   1129
pentium    Linux 1.1.54    90    11    294         439   1254
alpha         OSF1 V2.1   182    10     56         321    452
ss20.50       SunOS 5.4    49    20    284         291    575    No L2 cache?
ss20.61       SunOS 5.4    60    16    115         816    961

--
---
Larry McVoy			(415) 390-1804			 l...@sgi.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux' shortcomings in shootouts ...
Message-ID: <Czz9oC.Gw4@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <3ampve$2hq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <CzoJzA.8F5@info.swan.ac.uk> 
<3b01sg$t43@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 12:36:12 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <3b01sg$...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> nic...@cs.tu-berlin.de writes:
>This is getting more and more technical and thus more and more
>interesting. What I now *really* would like to see are the *figures*
>for all this (time of context switch, scheduler overhead, syscall
>setup time, perhaps more). Not opinions, but real numbers, processor
>cycles (of the same processor, of course) preferred.

I've got nothing more useful than the byte benchmarks  syscall test
[watch this its basically one syscall in a loop and some vendors optimise
 for the benchmark!] the byte pipe test (context switching a pipe) and
multiple scripts test (this one really shows the weaknesses in the Linux
scheduler).

Anyone with some really good benchmark recommendations - I too will be 
interested in this and if we can start a context switch/scheduling/syscall
overhead fight between the competitors we all benefit afterwards ;)

Alan
-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/