boba@netcom.UUCP (Bob Amstadt) (10/06/90)
Is anyone running Sys V Unix and X windows on a 386sx based machine? I'm interested in knowing what the performance is like. -- Bob Amstadt boba@netcom.UUCP 408-738-2479
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (10/07/90)
In article <14220@netcom.UUCP> boba@netcom.UUCP (Bob Amstadt) writes: >Is anyone running Sys V Unix and X windows on a 386sx based machine? >I'm interested in knowing what the performance is like. >-- I doubt that it would be very good ... I am running Esix on a 386(DX)/25, and while the system performance is just fine in "normal terminal" mode, the Xwindows performance is nothing to write home about. I hear that X11R4 will be faster though. I doubt that a 16/20 MHz 386SX will be sufficient to run Xwindows, although it may be OK for normal apps. Bill -- ** REPLIES FAIL - To reply, mail directly to one of the addresses show below ** home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com work: heiser@sud509.ed.ray.com
pozar@kumr.UUCP (Tim Pozar) (10/08/90)
In article <14220@netcom.UUCP> boba@netcom.UUCP (Bob Amstadt) writes: >Is anyone running Sys V Unix and X windows on a 386sx based machine? >I'm interested in knowing what the performance is like. I ran ESIX's OS (rev.C) on a straight 16MHz '386 w/ 4 megs-o-memory. I found the paging was severe with only 4megs. You really need 8megs to run it with out the problems. I have been told that 16bit memory is pretty tought to live with also. I have been strongly encouraged to have a 32bit memory bus. Doesn't a SX only have a 16bit memory bus? I have since upgraded to a 33MHz '396 w/ 8megs-o-memory. Much faster, but some screen updates are slightly slower that I would like. Paging is not a problem now. I have found xfroot with out a co- processor will slow the system down noticably. Tim -- Tim Pozar Try also... uunet!hoptoad!kumr!pozar Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) (10/08/90)
pozar@kumr.UUCP (Tim Pozar) writes: > I have since upgraded to a 33MHz '396 w/ 8megs-o-memory. Much >faster, but some screen updates are slightly slower that I would like. >Paging is not a problem now. I have found xfroot with out a co- >processor will slow the system down noticably. I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin Le) (10/09/90)
In article <14220@netcom.UUCP> boba@netcom.UUCP (Bob Amstadt) writes: >Is anyone running Sys V Unix and X windows on a 386sx based machine? >I'm interested in knowing what the performance is like. I run ISC v2.0.2 and X11R4 Xvga on a 386/20. The performance is quite usable as compared to a Sun 3 (faster in some operations). I do have 8MB of RAM (I wouldn't try it with less). If you are going to be using a 386sx, I recommend minimum of 8MB and you should be running X11R4. Do NOT use R3, not worth the trouble. Also get a fast graphics card (16 bit VGA card). The performance should be close to a diskless Sun 3 with 8MB of RAM and SunOS 4.x. -- Tin Le -- .---------------------------------------------------------------------- . Tin Le Work Internet: tin@smsc.Sony.COM . Sony Microsystems UUCP: {uunet,mips}!sonyusa!tin . Work: (408) 944-4157 Home Internet: tin@szebra.UUCP
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct08.120302.5093@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: > >I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages > >I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. > What are you running that takes up so much memory, Larry? I don't run into swapping unless I'm also running X. (Are you running X?) -- home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com Public Access Unix (508) 655-3848 work: heiser@sud509.ed.ray.com
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct08.120302.5093@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: > >I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages > >I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. > Mine does, too, if I start up too many sessions -- With a couple of windows it is OK. -- home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com Public Access Unix (508) 655-3848 work: heiser@sud509.ed.ray.com
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct08.120302.5093@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: >I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages This depends upon how many windows you are opening, what other processes you are running, how many users are on your machine, etc. For most X users 8MB will be enough. If you are running big applications, or lots of them, you may want to go to 12 MB. We are running with 8MB on one X system and 12MB on the other. On each of them we have 10 X processes running and have had no problem swapping on either system. >I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. Sounds that way to me. Perhaps you have some processes that gobble up lots of memory. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) (10/09/90)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages >> >>I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. >> >What are you running that takes up so much memory, Larry? I don't run >into swapping unless I'm also running X. (Are you running X?) Yes - I run X release 1.2 - and I need at least another 4 megs of RAM. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (10/10/90)
In article <1990Oct09.123819.366@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: >bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: > >>>I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages >>> >>>I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. >>> > >>What are you running that takes up so much memory, Larry? I don't run >>into swapping unless I'm also running X. (Are you running X?) > >Yes - I run X release 1.2 - and I need at least another 4 megs of >RAM. > > Geesh, I don't know what I was thinking of when I asked *that* question! I guess I must have been half asleep... -- home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com Public Access Unix (508) 655-3848 work: heiser@sud509.ed.ray.com
schoch@sheba.arc.nasa.gov (Steve Schoch) (10/10/90)
In article <1990Oct09.115208.1490@virtech.uucp>, cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: |> |> This depends upon how many windows you are opening, what other processes |> you are running, how many users are on your machine, etc. This depends mostly on what other processes you are running. Creating another window on an X server takes about 100 bytes for most servers (the space needed by the structures allocated for each window - if the server does a saveUnder for the window it will take more). However, another process such as xterm will take 150k. This assumes you have shared text and another xterm is already running. Otherwise a new X application can take 1/2 Meg. I think a lot of this is for the toolkit and widget code. Steve
larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) (10/11/90)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>Yes - I run X release 1.2 - and I need at least another 4 megs of >>RAM. Yesterday I replaced the motherboard with one that holds 16 megs on it (I only have 12 of the megs filled) - and not only is this board faster than my other 33/386 by about 10%, but the extra RAM really makes a difference when I run X. No swapping at all - And my Computone board works just fine (the cache doesn't bother it at all). Now I can have my cake and eat it too! -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) (10/11/90)
schoch@sheba.arc.nasa.gov (Steve Schoch) writes: >This depends mostly on what other processes you are running. Creating another >window on an X server takes about 100 bytes for most servers (the space >needed by the structures allocated for each window - if the server does a >saveUnder for the window it will take more). However, another process such >as xterm will take 150k. This assumes you have shared text and another xterm >is already running. Otherwise a new X application can take 1/2 Meg. this also depends on how you set up your windows and your window manager - I have 5 windows, each with 12K of buffer allocated so I can "click and shoot" to scroll back and forth within windows.. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct09.123819.366@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: >bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>>I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages >>>I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. >Yes - I run X release 1.2 - and I need at least another 4 megs of >RAM. Something is weird. I run chinet on a 20mhz 386 with 8 megs memory. It is ISC 2.2 and I run X 1.2 on the console. There are anywhere from 0 to 9 users at a time on chinet running things like trn, and cnews is doing its thing on 8 megs of news a day. I NEVER swap. I just looked at 2 weeks of sar output, and watched u386mon from an xterm while news was unpacking and there were 4 people doing various things. Never went above 80% memory usage. Sounds like some kernel tuning is in order. -randy -- Randy Suess randy@chinet.chi.il.us
john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) (10/13/90)
In article <1990Oct12.153331.5555@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: >>bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>>>I have a 33 with 8 megs also - and with X - my machine still pages >>>>I guess I need another 4 megs of RAM.. >>Yes - I run X release 1.2 - and I need at least another 4 megs of >>RAM. > > Something is weird. I run chinet on a 20mhz 386 with 8 megs > memory. It is ISC 2.2 and I run X 1.2 on the console. There > are anywhere from 0 to 9 users at a time on chinet running > things like trn, and cnews is doing its thing on 8 megs of > news a day. I NEVER swap. I just looked at 2 weeks of sar > output, and watched u386mon from an xterm while news was > unpacking and there were 4 people doing various things. > >-- Which begs the question, how did *you* tune your kernel, Randy? -- --------------------- john@admctr.chi.il.us John Mundt Teachers' Aide, Inc. P.O. Box 1666, Highland Park, IL (708) 998-5007 || -432-8860
tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) (10/14/90)
In <1990Oct7.022705.12488@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >I doubt that a 16/20 MHz 386SX will be sufficient to run Xwindows, >although it may be OK for normal apps. I read recently a claim that a 386SX with lots of memory made a perfectly adequate Unix box (which I took to include X). This made quite an impression on me, as the author claimed you could get such a setup for $1000. (Not including software, I assume.) It would be nice to hear from someone that has actually done this, in the real world. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
mutchler@zule.EBay.Sun.COM (Dan Mutchler) (10/15/90)
After having done much shopping around I was able to buy the following
configuration for $2200 (including 7% CA tax):
16 MHz 386sx
4 MB Memory
80 MB SCSI disk
1024x768x8 VGA card and monitor
1 serial, 1 parallel port
keyboard
Case & power supply.
I seriously doubt that this price could be beat by a lot, since I
priced it at over 10 stores over a 2 month period.
Having loaded SCO Unix with Open Desktop on a 4 MB Compaq I know that
you will need more than 4 MB. Probably a minimum of 6 MB with 8-16MB
being better. Adding about $80/MB the price jumps another $200 easily.
I use our system to run Windows 3.0 and I find that the 386sx is
seriously inadequate for pushing the bits around on the Super VGA
card. I suspect a 25 MHz 386 would be adequate, but for that
resolution a graphics accelerator or 486 would be ideal.
--
Dan Mutchler | ARPA/Internet: mutchler@zule.EBay.Sun.COM
Sun Federal System Engineer | UUCP: ...!sun!mutchler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying back from Lubbock, I saw Jesus on the plane
Or maybe it was Elvis, You know they kind of look the same.
-- Don Henleyrcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (10/16/90)
tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: > I read recently a claim that a 386SX with lots of memory > made a perfectly adequate Unix box (which I took to include X). A 386 SX with enough memory is a decent UNIX box. But don't jump from there to including X. It takes a bunch more memory and compute power to support X beyond what just UNIX requires. > This made quite an impression on me, > as the author claimed you could get such a setup for $1000. > (Not including software, I assume.) No, definitely not including software, and you're not going to get the hardware for $1000 either. You can get the hardware to run a reasonable UNIX system, and maybe marginally support X, for $2000. A sketch of the prices of the pieces, using low-but-believable numbers, for the basic UNIX box (not enough for X) looks like this: 200 case, power supply, floppy 400 SX motherboard w/IDE, serial, parallel 220 + 4 Mb memory 120 cheapo mono character display and controller 550 80 Mb disk Your mileage will vary a bit, but that adds up to about $1500 and it's kind of skimpy. (For example, there's no modem, printer, or network; your communication with the outside world is pretty limited.) You could cut the disk back, but the next common step down for IDE is 40, which just ain't enough...and if you switch to (say) RLL, you need a controller. The minimum addition to support X is a couple Mb more ($100+), display/ controller ($few hundred), and a mouse (< $100). -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Worst-case analysis must never begin with "No one would ever want..."
root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct13.220633.8294@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: >In <1990Oct7.022705.12488@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: > >>I doubt that a 16/20 MHz 386SX will be sufficient to run Xwindows, >>although it may be OK for normal apps. > >I read recently a claim that a 386SX with lots of memory >made a perfectly adequate Unix box (which I took to include X). >This made quite an impression on me, >as the author claimed you could get such a setup for $1000. >(Not including software, I assume.) > >It would be nice to hear from someone that has actually done this, >in the real world. I would be very surprised if reasonable performance resulted from such a setup. I am convinced that X could run, given 8 Meg of RAM, but it would be annoyingly slow. At 4 Meg of RAM, there would probably be severe swapping problems.
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (10/16/90)
In article root@dlb.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) writes: >In article tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: >>In bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >> >>>I doubt that a 16/20 MHz 386SX will be sufficient to run Xwindows, >>>although it may be OK for normal apps. >> >>I read recently a claim that a 386SX with lots of memory >>made a perfectly adequate Unix box (which I took to include X). >> >>It would be nice to hear from someone that has actually done this, >>in the real world. > >I would be very surprised if reasonable performance resulted from such a setup. >I am convinced that X could run, given 8 Meg of RAM, but it would be annoyingly >slow. At 4 Meg of RAM, there would probably be severe swapping problems. I've done it in the real world, using ESIX 3.2.C X11R3 on my 16mhz SX with both 4 and 8 meg. Four meg works, it's not pretty; every time you drag the cursor between windows the drive access light comes on as the thing starts to swap. With 8 meg it doesn't spend as much time swapping. I think the real bottleneck tho' is the VGA display on the 8mhz AT bus. After a year of living with the SX, I just upgraded to a 486 and, while all around faster, the display is still the weak link (it is a 16bit VGA.) What intrigues me the most is that the display performance for OS/2 is orders of magnitude better; the X server writers need to get a lot smarter about handling the VGA, especially bit blitting. BTW, I've heard that ESIX 3.2.D is substantially better in many areas including the X Server, I'm waiting for my update to arrive. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov causing trouble again.
larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) (10/17/90)
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >real bottleneck tho' is the VGA display on the 8mhz AT bus. After a year of >living with the SX, I just upgraded to a 486 and, while all around faster, >the display is still the weak link (it is a 16bit VGA.) What intrigues me >the most is that the display performance for OS/2 is orders of magnitude >better; the X server writers need to get a lot smarter about handling the >VGA, especially bit blitting. I've also heard that X11R4 is faster writing than X11R3 with regular 16 bit VGA boards as well.. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
scottw@ico.isc.com (Scott Wiesner) (10/17/90)
> What intrigues me > the most is that the display performance for OS/2 is orders of magnitude > better; the X server writers need to get a lot smarter about handling the > VGA, especially bit blitting. Hey! You're comparing apples and oranges here. I assume OS/2 is like Windows in this area, which means they cheat. All blits that I've seen in Windows are aligned, meaning both the source and destination for the blit are on the same bit position within the display memory. That's a huge win on a VGA. I'd be suprised if truly general blitting were any faster. If you've got other examples of things that are faster under Windows or OS/2, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Not that I don't need to get a lot smarter, but I'm willing to argue this example a bit. :-) Scott Wiesner Interactive Systems "X server writer ... VGA"
tin@szebra.uucp (Tin Le) (10/18/90)
> In article <1990Oct16.201137.18397@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: >kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: > >>real bottleneck tho' is the VGA display on the 8mhz AT bus. After a year of >>living with the SX, I just upgraded to a 486 and, while all around faster, >>the display is still the weak link (it is a 16bit VGA.) What intrigues me >>the most is that the display performance for OS/2 is orders of magnitude >>better; the X server writers need to get a lot smarter about handling the >>VGA, especially bit blitting. > >I've also heard that X11R4 is faster writing than X11R3 with regular >16 bit VGA boards as well.. Yes. X11R4 is faster in many aspects. The server has been optimized in a number of areas. It is well worth upgrading to it if you are running R3 now. On an SX, the minimum requirements are (in order): >=8MB RAM, high speed graphics card (VGA 800x600 or better), X11R4. I use a 386/20 and X11R4 performance is adequate for my need. I only need to keep an eye on szebra (a Pub *NIX node with full news feed). Several x clients, a TB+ line, news feed, a couple windows all works just fine. I do have the system params tuned so that there is no paging/swapping. No, I only have 8MB (nothing fancy). Folks, it is possible to have a usable X system without spending a lot of money. Yes, you are right. I wouldn't want to also develop software on it. If I were to do that, then I'd get more memory (at least 16MB total) and a faster hard disk. The key point here is not the speed of the processor, but rather the I/O subsystem throughput. A 386sx is perfectly adequate to run X11R4. The bottleneck that people are complaining about here is the graphics (EGA/VGA isn't exactly a speed demon, even a 16bit card), paging and swapping problems (more memory and faster hard disk/controller helps), and probably also bad serial I/O throughput (the default 8250 or even 14450 UART is a piece of garbage folks, upgrade to 16550 immediately!). With the proper system tuning and I/O subsystems, I can make a lowly 386 seems as fast as a SPARC (NOTE: I said "seems") in terms of responsive user interface. I am sure everyone would love to own a 486/33 with 16MB RAM or more. Yeah, me too :).... But I sure as hell can't justify spending so much money when it's not really needed. In Summary: Here is my opinion, it's free so take it with a grain of salt. A 386sx is fine to run *nix and X Windows BUT, it must be at least of the following configuration: - 8MB RAM (or more) - 16bit VGA (get a fast one) must support at least 800x600 16 colors (SVGA of 1024x768 is great) Or (if you can afford it) - 8514/A with a graphic co-proc (TI 32XXX) - 14" monitor (16" would be much better); color would be nice but monochrome is fine - high speed HD system (ESDI or SCSI) it's your personal bias here (I prefer SCSI, but 15Mb ESDI is fine). - fast HD (of course, fast ctrlr with slow HD is useless) Cost: 386sx/16 Motherboard (0K) $300 8MB RAM (100ns or 120ns) $400-$450 16bit VGA (256KB VRAM or more) $180-$280 14" monochrome (NEC) $200+ Adaptec 1542B SCSI $300+ 80MB SCSI (16ms) $400+ case/power/floppy/keybrd $300 -------- $2080-$2380 Unix S5 R3.2 Full package (ESIX?) $800+ Thomas Roelle X11R4 Xvga Free Gnu gcc/g++/bash/files/etc Free -- Tin Le -- +----------------------------------------------------------------- |Tin Le | tin@smsc.sony.com or tin@szebra.uucp |Station Zebra |....!{claris,zorch}!szebra!tin |Sunnyvale, CA | (408) 739-1520 24hrs Telebit+ 300-19200bps