jh@efd.lth.se (Joergen Haegg) (02/19/91)
Is there any difference between Esix and the other types like SCO and Interactive? Esix seems to be the cheapest alternative, but is there any problem with it? -- Joergen Haegg jh@efd.lth.se postmaster@efd.lth.se System manager @ efd 046-107492 Lund Institute of Technology E-huset, DDG, Ole R|mers v. 3 221 00 LUND, Sweden
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (02/20/91)
jh@efd.lth.se (Joergen Haegg) writes: >Esix seems to be the cheapest alternative, >but is there any problem with it? It isn't fully support by third party developers, the file system isn't nearly as fast as what is available from Interactive, and their X port isn't quite as fast as others - On the other hand, support is good and free (so I've been told) - and upgrades are reasonably priced. If I were starting again, I would go with Dell System V release 4.0 -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb19.170035.7450@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >jh@efd.lth.se (Joergen Haegg) writes: >>Esix seems to be the cheapest alternative, >>but is there any problem with it? >It isn't fully support by third party developers, the file system isn't >nearly as fast as what is available from Interactive, Is this still true? As of release 5.3.2 Rev. D ESIX has been shipping a version of The BSD FFS. My experience with ESIX's FFS has been very positive. Though I have no experience with ISC's, I can assure you that the FFS with ESIX Rev. D is noticably faster than is their standard System V file system. -- Bob Willcox ...!{rutgers|ames}!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob Phone: 512 258-4224
darrylo@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) (02/21/91)
In comp.unix.sysv386, jh@efd.lth.se (Joergen Haegg) writes: > Is there any difference between Esix and the other types like SCO and > Interactive? > > Esix seems to be the cheapest alternative, > but is there any problem with it? The biggest thing Esix is missing (in my opinion) is a real BSD sockets library (both ISC and SCO have it). Esix has a library that appears to be a BSD socket library (the routine names in the library *appear* to be BSD socket routine names), but it's not. -- Darryl Okahata UUCP: {hplabs!, hpcea!, hpfcla!} hpnmd!darrylo Internet: darrylo%hpnmd@relay.hp.com DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not constitute the support, opinion or policy of Hewlett-Packard or of the little green men that have been following him all day.
dave@cs.olemiss.edu (David E. Johnson) (02/21/91)
ESIX compatibilty (and third-party support) should be equal to all other PC UN*X implementations as of the upcoming ESIX V/R4 release. Binary compatibility with all others as welll as XENIX comes for free. dave -- David E. Johnson Department of Computer Science ** Title: Systems Programmer The University of Mississippi ** Telephone: (601) 232-7396 336 Weir Hall ** Internet: dave@cs.olemiss.edu
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (02/26/91)
bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) writes: >Is this still true? As of release 5.3.2 Rev. D ESIX has been shipping yes The Interactive FFS is still much faster than the ESIX FFS that is shipped with rev D. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) (03/10/91)
In article <9044@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >I concurr with Lary's note - ESIX Rev. D disk/file-system speed is greatly >improved over earlier versions, but this statement essentailly amounts to >"condemnation with faint praise." ISC (mine is 2.0.2) is noticably faster. Okay, I'll accept that. However, just to appease my curiosity and to give me a point of reference, can you tell me what the performance of the ISC filesystem is? Simple sequential read of a large file would be fine. For comparison, my ESIX runs at appx. 440KB/sec in this kind of test. This is with an Ultrastor Ultra 12(F) ESDI controller and Maxstor 4380E drives. -- Bob Willcox ...!{rutgers|ames}!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob Phone: 512 258-4224
mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) (03/11/91)
From article <293@rancor.UUCP>, by bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox): > In article <9044@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >>I concurr with Lary's note - ESIX Rev. D disk/file-system speed is greatly >>improved over earlier versions, but this statement essentailly amounts to >>"condemnation with faint praise." ISC (mine is 2.0.2) is noticably faster. > > Okay, I'll accept that. However, just to appease my curiosity and to > give me a point of reference, can you tell me what the performance of > the ISC filesystem is? ESIX seems to default to a rather small amount of buffers. This may be for those sites with little memory. If you have alot, up the FFSBUFFERS in /etc/conf/cf.d/stune to something bigger. I think this parameter refers to the number of 8K buffers reserved. If you don't use FFS, set this very low since it eats your memory. Up the value NBUF made a huge difference on this box with the S51K systems. FFS didn't seem reliable on this RLL drive but the S51K stuff works great. -Mike grenier mike@cimcor.mn.org
bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) (03/12/91)
In article <1991Mar10.211104.9790@cimcor.mn.org> mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) writes: >From article <293@rancor.UUCP>, by bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox): >> In article <9044@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: (deleted) stuff about performance of ESIX vs. ISC filesytems > >ESIX seems to default to a rather small amount of buffers. This >may be for those sites with little memory. If you have alot, up the >FFSBUFFERS in /etc/conf/cf.d/stune to something bigger. I think >this parameter refers to the number of 8K buffers reserved. I have set FFSBUFFERS on my system to 256 (total of 2MB) which did help overall system performance, though sequential read performance was unchanged (as you would expect). >Up the value NBUF made a huge difference on this box with the >S51K systems. FFS didn't seem reliable on this RLL drive but the >S51K stuff works great. Since I only use FFS, I set NBUF low (100, probably could have gone lower though) since I don't think they are being used. (Does anyone know if the 1KB buffers are ever used if you don't have any S51K filesystems?) -- Bob Willcox ...!{rutgers|ames}!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob Phone: 512 258-4224
mburg@unix386.Convergent.COM (Mike Burg) (03/13/91)
In article <294@rancor.UUCP>, bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) writes:
# >From article <293@rancor.UUCP>, by bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox):
# >Up the value NBUF made a huge difference on this box with the
# >S51K systems. FFS didn't seem reliable on this RLL drive but the
# >S51K stuff works great.
#
# Since I only use FFS, I set NBUF low (100, probably could have gone
# lower though) since I don't think they are being used. (Does anyone
# know if the 1KB buffers are ever used if you don't have any S51K
# filesystems?)
You can set NBUF to probably as low as 10 (ten). You cannot set it
to zero because there are portions of the kernel (namely device drivers)
which use getebuf() to retrieve a buffer to perform I/O. The ECHD driver
uses it to retrieve the VTOC/PDINFO blocks from the disk upon opening of
a drive.
--
----------------------------------
Michael Burg - Unisys/Convergent Corp. Unix Intel Platforms Division San Jose
Phone: (408) 456-5934 UUCP: uunet!pyramid!ctnews!unix386.Convergent.com!mburgmartin@saturn.uucp (Martin J. Schedlbauer) (03/16/91)
In article <294@rancor.UUCP> bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) writes: >In article <1991Mar10.211104.9790@cimcor.mn.org> mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) writes: > >Since I only use FFS, I set NBUF low (100, probably could have gone >lower though) since I don't think they are being used. (Does anyone >know if the 1KB buffers are ever used if you don't have any S51K >filesystems?) > I once tried to set that value to about 30 (Esix) and then the system wouldn't boot. It seems that during the initial boot it uses some of these buffers. I guess there was a reason why the Esix folks set it the minumum to 100 in mtune:) ...Martin -- ============================================================================== Martin J. Schedlbauer | martin@saturn.UUCP | ...!ulowell!saturn!martin 8 Gilman Road | mschedlb@ulowell.edu | ...!uunet!wang!saturn!martin Billerica, MA 01862 USA | CIS: 76675, 3364 | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\