lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: real kernel bloat
Jolt Cola writes:
> > Despite the AlphaStation having a
> > processor that's at least 5 times faster and having PCI instead of ISA
> > for its peripherals, Digital UNIX manages to make it suck for
> > interactive performance.
>
> My experience with Alpha has been exactly opposite.

I suspect your machine has more memory. Still, why should a machine
with better hardware and the same amount of memory perform so badly?
Why isn't Digital UNIX shipped better tuned for the size of machine DEC
ships it on?

> > So those of you complaining about Linux's kernel bloat haven't seen
> > anything if you haven't seen Digital UNIX. Linux has a long, long way
> > to go before it could aspire to be that bloated.

> Our AlphaServer supports 5 programmers on X, runs Oracle database server,
> Web database interface, DNS, Samba services, sendmail and POP3 for
> the whole office. Also includes a true robust pthreads interface,
> logical volume manager, STREAMS, reliable signals, real-time support,
> solid scaleable SMP, solid clustering technology, good security features.
> It will be a LONG time before Linux matches DECs clustering technology,
> that is due to the fact that they are pioneers in the field and have
> about a 20 year head start.
>
> All the while, the interactive performance stays good.

So how much memory does this machine have? Are there some magic kernel
tuning parameters that will get my machine to behave better?

At least I should have twice as much memory in the AlphaStation soon; we
bought it with a standard amount of memory since it would be much
cheaper to buy more from somebody other than DEC.

> I would love to drop in Linux for this but it isn't up to it yet.
> I AM excited that Linux-AXP promises to be a lot smaller than DEC
> UNIX when it eventually reaches DECs capability and stability.
>
> Try to be a little LESS obviously biased when comparing other
> poor helpless UNIX flavors, hey all of us want Linux to take over
> but don't kid yourself into thinking it already has.

I don't think I'm being biased at all. I've run a lot of different
UNIXes on a lot of different machines, and I don't necessarily want to
use Linux on everything. I just have a hard time believing that a
machine that seems like it ought to run fast would run so slow, and that
Digital UNIX seems to be what's eating all the CPU cycles.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.217 / U:0.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site