todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) (04/08/89)
To the 150 people who responded to my posting on 386 Unixes, and to other interested parties: This month's "UNIX Today" magazine (March 20 issue) has a review of the four major 386 Unixes. "UNIX Today" is a freebie for "qualified subscribers". UNIX Today 600 Community Dr. Manhasset, NY 11030 ...!gatech!stiatl!todd Todd Merriman * 404-377-TOFU * Atlanta, GA Note: I have no idea what my employer's views on the subject are.
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (04/08/89)
In article <4160@stiatl.UUCP> todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes: >To the 150 people who responded to my posting on 386 Unixes, and >to other interested parties: > >This month's "UNIX Today" magazine (March 20 issue) has a review >of the four major 386 Unixes. I wouldn't put much stock in the compiler benchmarks that were run in that issue. The tested hardware configuration had mixed speed memory - some 16 and some 32 bit (gag!). The various compilers turned in a 3 to 1 variation in performance. Apparently, it never occured to the author that where the process landed in memory might have something to do with the wild variation in results. UNIX Today succeeded only in proving itself to be no better than all the other free rags. -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (04/09/89)
In article <717@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >In article <4160@stiatl.UUCP> todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes: >>This month's "UNIX Today" magazine (March 20 issue) has a review >>of the four major 386 Unixes. >I wouldn't put much stock in the compiler benchmarks that were >run in that issue. The tested hardware configuration had >mixed speed memory - some 16 and some 32 bit (gag!). The >Apparently, it never occured to the author that where the >process landed in memory might have something to do with >the wild variation in results. >UNIX Today succeeded only in proving itself to be no >better than all the other free rags. Yes, I was very disappointed with that article. His results didn't jive with my experience's at all. Also I'm not to sure I believed some of his facts (like pricing). I would say it was about the worst article I've seen in UNIX Today ever (I've had a subscription since about the third or fourth issue). And in fact it was probably the worst article of it's type I've seen in the last year. UNIX Today had better stick to reporting Unix news (which they do seem competent at) until they can find someone who knows how to do a better job at reviewing systems and software. Does anyone at UNIX Today care to comment? -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
wcurtiss@x102c.harris-atd.com (Curtiss WC 67625) (04/10/89)
In article <4160@stiatl.UUCP> todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes: >To the 150 people who responded to my posting on 386 Unixes, and >to other interested parties: > >This month's "UNIX Today" magazine (March 20 issue) has a review >of the four major 386 Unixes. "UNIX Today" is a freebie for >"qualified subscribers". > > UNIX Today > 600 Community Dr. > Manhasset, NY 11030 > > > ...!gatech!stiatl!todd > Todd Merriman * 404-377-TOFU * Atlanta, GA > Note: I have no idea what my employer's views on the subject are. After this, several other poster voice their disappointments with the above article. I don't think anyone has mentioned it before (if they have, I didn't see it cross posted to comp.unix.microport), but the first issue of MIPS (February 1989) had a comparision of SCO Xenix, Interactive Systems 386/ix, Microport System V/386, and ENIX System V/386 (They couldn't get Bell Technologies System V/386 Release 3.2 to successfully transfer to the hard disks on their test systems). They tested them on both a Dell System 310 and Everex 386/20. They had plenty of benchmarks, and a seperate article discusses some of the benchmarks that are used. A one year subscription is $19.94 from: MIPS P.O. Box 51615 Boulder, Colorado 80321-1615 I have no affiliation with MIPS Publishing. Any comments on this article and the magazine as a whole? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Curtiss 407/984-6383 | "The only good martyr Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL 32902 | is a dead martyr." Internet: wcurtiss%x102c@trantor.harris-atd.com | - Standard disclamers apply -
dag@fciva.FRANKLIN.COM (Daniel A. Graifer) (04/11/89)
The February '89 issue (pg 84) of MIPS* contains a review of SCO Xenix, Interactive Systems 386/ix, Microport System V/386 and ENIX system V/386. They had trouble loading Bell Technologies System V/386 Rel 3.2, but review it on a comparable basis in the March '89 issue (pg 81). I found the discussions useful in making my selection. Dan The usual disclaimer: I have no connection to any of these companies except as a customer/subscriber. Daniel A. Graifer Franklin Capital Investments uunet!fciva!dag 7900 Westpark Drive, Suite A130 (703)821-3244 McLean, VA 22102 *The Magizine of Intellgent Personal Systems MIPS Publishing, Inc. 400 Amherst S., Suite 202 Nashua, NH 03063
tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) (04/14/89)
Quoth sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) in <2354@van-bc.UUCP>: |In article <717@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: |>In article <4160@stiatl.UUCP> todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes: |>>This month's "UNIX Today" magazine (March 20 issue) has a review |>>of the four major 386 Unixes. | |>I wouldn't put much stock in the compiler benchmarks that were |>run in that issue. The tested hardware configuration had |>mixed speed memory - some 16 and some 32 bit (gag!). The | | |Yes, I was very disappointed with that article. His results didn't jive with |my experience's at all. Also I'm not to sure I believed some of his facts |(like pricing). | For a much better comparison, see the recent issue of MIPS Magazine (April? May? I don't have it at hand...) wherein all currently available 386 *NIXs are compared using a much more consistent environment and test suite. I like this magazine better with every issue... anyone who is seriously involved with 80386 or better computing should be reading it. Standard Disclaimer: I buy my copy like everyone else, your MIPS may vary. -- "Still I sing bonny boys, bonny mad boys, | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth Bedlam boys are bonny, | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 For they all go bare, and they live by the air, | (914) 375-1510 And they want nor drink nor money." - Steeleye Span | cmcl2!hombre!dasys1!tbetz
dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (04/15/89)
Just to follow up on the flames at UNIX Today's article ... (talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth ... ) I didn't particularly agree with all of the points presented about our UNIX, but I thought it was a pretty good article. If you think you can do better, get to it and crank out an article for the UNIX magazines. Every one of the journals is looking for qualified people to write quality articles. As one editor put it to me once, "There's just not enough mediocrity to go around." Put together an article proposal, draft an outline, and send it to the editor for the magazine for which you would like to write. You'll discover that even superficial reviews take an immense amount of care and time to accomplish, and that a review as relatively detailed as that which UNIX Today ran takes weeks to do. UNIX Today should be commended for actually taking the time to procure and install each package and to actually run it. If you want to complain about "trash" reviews, save your time for some of the DOS magazines that "review" products by re-writing vendor-supplied press releases. (Or save your flames for the net, where unlike the free copy of UNIX Today, we get to pay phone charges to read things we don't always agree with). - Dimitri Rotow
rfg@riunite.ACA.MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (04/15/89)
In article <9328@dasys1.UUCP> tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) writes: > >For a much better comparison, see the recent issue of MIPS >Magazine (April? May? I don't have it at hand...) wherein all >currently available 386 *NIXs are compared using a much more >consistent environment and test suite. I just received a reprint of the MIPS article today from the ENIX people. They are sending it out as a part of their marketing materials to anyone who inquires about ENIX. I'm not sure yet if this is really any better than the UNIX Today article which has been bashed here recently. Unless I'm mistaken (which I may be because I only skimmed the article) I think that the timing tests are all very suspect. Why? Well, it seems that for some of the UNIX's, it was *faster* to *copy* a 50000 block file than it was to just *read* it. Does that make any sense to anybody else? Did I mis-read the article? Sounds like smoke and mirrors (and disk block caching interference) to me. I think that if you are going to do reasonable disk I/O speed tests that you have to somehow factor out any apparent speed changes which arise from (a) disk block buffering/caching, or (b) absolute locations of the particular blocks accessed (i.e. near or far from the center of the platters), or (c) relative locations of the particular blocks accessed (i.e. near or far from each other... which can affect total seek time dramatically). Perhaps the only totally fair way to run such a test is (a) always perform the test immediately after booting to assure that the disk block cache is effectively flushed (i.e. no blocks from the file to be accessed are in the block buffer), and (b) do the read/write operations on a second totally empty drive so that the locations of blocks are the same for all tests (unless the particular OS being tested uses a unique algorithim for allocating new blocks). It would also be a good idea to quote numbers when doing I/O both to a file on a formatted drive with a filesystem on it *and* to a raw disk device. I/O to/from a raw second drive, either reading and/or writting to/from physical blocks 0 through N would probably tell you a lot more about the true speed of the OS's disk I/O than anything else I can think of. -- // Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental Systems Kit Project // 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759 - (512)338-3740 // ARPA: rfg@mcc.com // UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg
tbetz@lilink.UUCP (Tom Betz) (04/15/89)
Quoth tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (TOM BETZ) in <9328@dasys1.UUCP>: | |For a much better comparison, see the recent issue of MIPS |Magazine (April? May? I don't have it at hand...) wherein all |currently available 386 *NIXs are compared using a much more |consistent environment and test suite. I checked, it was February. With an Interactive test redone in March or April. |I like this magazine better with every issue... anyone who is |seriously involved with 80386 or better computing should be |reading it. | |Standard Disclaimer: I buy my copy like everyone else, your |MIPS may vary. This stands. -- "Still I sing bonny boys, bonny mad boys, | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth Ave. Bedlam boys are bonny, for they all go bare, | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 and they live by the air, and they want | decvax!mergvax!lilink!tbetz nor drink nor money." - Steeleye Span | cmcl2!hombre!lilink!tbetz