home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1749 comp.arch.storage:791
- Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.arch.storage
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!tulane!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!pandora.pix.com!stripes
- From: stripes@pix.com (Josh Osborne)
- Subject: Re: Disk performance issues, was IDE vs SCSI-2 using iozone
- Message-ID: <Bxz7vy.LyF@pix.com>
- Sender: news@pix.com (The News Subsystem)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pandora.pix.com
- Organization: Pix Technologies -- The company with no adult supervision
- References: <36995@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1992Nov12.193308.20297@igor.tamri.com> <37043@cbmvax.commodore.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:40:44 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <37043@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:
- [...]
- > You need to separate multi-tasking from multi-user. Single-user
- >machines (and this includes most desktop Unix boxes) don't have the activity
- >levels for the example you gave to have any relevance. It's rare that more
- >than one or two files are being accessed in any given second or even minute.
- >Also, in a single-user environment, average response time becomes the over-
- >riding factor over total throughput.
-
- Not true. Think about a C compiler running on a VM system with a small amount
- of RAM. The swap "file" (or partition) will be accessed quite a bit, and the
- source file, and the output file (be it a .s, or .o), and on some systems the
- compiler executable. That's true for both single-user and multi-user systems
- (and single-user systems may be under-RAMed more offen...).
-
- [...]
- --
- stripes@pix.com "Security for Unix is like
- Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Multitasking for MS-DOS"
- "The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood
- We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on
- when it's necessary to compromise. - Larry Wall
-