🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.os.mach
Article #875

The value of microbenchmarking (WAS Re: Mach RPC Throughput...)

#875
From: Alessandro Forin
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 15:54
43 lines
2735 bytes
In article <9337@star.cs.vu.nl>, ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
> 
> What are the current figures for the 3.0 microkernel for sending a null
> message from user space on one machine over the Ethernet to another
> user process and then back, i.e. the null RPC time?  Also, what is the
> maximum user-to-user bandwidth in 3.0?  If possibly, what are they 
> on Sun 3/60s, to compare them with the numbers I published in the Dec, 1990
> CACM.
> 
> Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

It is customary in our field to use microbenchmarks such as ast's one
when talking about a system, for various (practical) reasons.  However,
that is only meaningful for comparisons purposes when all other 
things are equal.  In this case I strongly fear we are comparing apples
and oranges.
I was, for instance, surprised to hear from a friend that visited
Denmark last summer that Amoeba is quite far from being a usable system.
Certainly things have improved since, but I will only be willing to
compare Mach and Amoeba seriously when I will be able to:

1) login from testarossa.mach.cs.cmu.edu to a machine running Amoeba
2) compile a C program, maybe run some Lisp code
3) send/receive mail locally
4) locally produce a paper describing my impressions of the system
5) come back a couple weeks later and find all my files still there

I can certainly volunteer to ast an account on testarossa which
has been a Mach 3.0 system for quite some time, to prove that it 
meets all the above criteria.
[A quick way to summarize the above tests is to answer the question
 "Does Andy Tanenbaum use Amoeba as his own operating system ?".]

Please note that Sprite and the V kernel both pass, as far as I know,
the above tests.  In addition, I have a Sprite distribution tape that
I received at no charge and installed myself on my machine, but that's
a story for another day...

Respectfully yours,
sandro-
PS: Incidentally, does the "local RPC" optimization take into account
heterogeneity ? I mean, what are the times between a Sun 3/60 and
a VaxStation 3100.  Just curious.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.155406.1320@cs.cmu.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!netnews
References: <MORSE.91Mar14091659@quark.mpr.ca> <63274@bbn.BBN.COM> <9337@star.cs.vu.nl>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!netnews
From: af@cs.cmu.edu (Alessandro Forin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: The value of microbenchmarking (WAS Re: Mach RPC Throughput...)
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.155406.1320@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 91 15:54:06 GMT
References: <MORSE.91Mar14091659@quark.mpr.ca> <63274@bbn.BBN.COM> <9337@star.cs.vu.nl>
Sender: netnews@cs.cmu.edu (USENET News Group Software)
Followup-To: comp.os.mach
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 43