🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MORSE.91Mar14091659@quark.mpr.ca> morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes:
>
>Now that we have been throroughly reminded of some of the differences
>between Amoeba and Mach, I have a question regarding the throughput of
>the Mach RPC. First a bit of background...
...
>Why is the
>throughput of the Mach RPC so much slower than the other OSes? Are the
>respective RPCs different enough that throughput is a meaningless
>"apples and oranges" comparision? Has the Mach RPC simply not been
>optimized as heavily as that of the other OSes?
>

The answer is that this is an example of comparing an old version of 
piece of software with a new version of a competing package.  Given
the dates cited in your article, the Mach RPC tested would be version
2.5 or lower.  For Mach 3.0, the RPC system was completely re-written
by Richard Draves.  One of the results was a real increase in speed.
You will be wanting to read the paper "A Revised IPC Interface", Richard
Draves, Proceedings of the October 1990 "Machnix" Conference, Burlington
Vt.

An example of the increase in performance is that the null RPC now takes
125 micro-seconds instead of 210 micro-seconds.

>Thanks.

your welcome ;-),
fletcher

>
>--
>Daryl Morse                     | Voice : (604) 293-5476
>MPR Teltech Ltd. 		| Fax   : (604) 293-5787
>8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC    | E-Mail: morse@quark.mpr.ca
>Canada, V5A 4B5                 |         quark.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net


Fletcher Kittredge
Platforms and Tools Group, BBN Software Products
10 Fawcett Street,  Cambridge, MA. 02138
617-873-3465  /  fkittred@bbn.com  /  fkittred@das.harvard.edu