OS X performance vs the OSs

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Small question that I hope someone outthere in cyberspace can answer.

Has anyone seen any comparisons out there between OS X and other OSs ?




Admiral
 

endian

Dis Member
I there there have been a couple OSX vs. XP articles, but if you mean actual performance tests, OSX isnt out yet, so any results they get would be extremely suspect. Wait another month and do your own testing ;)
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
The server versionhas been out a while now :)
I was wondering how good OS X server is as opposed to win2K, linux, solaris etc :)

(should have been more clear lol..but rest assured I will be doing tests ;-) )


Admiral
 

endian

Dis Member
well, you shoulda said so then! :)

OSX *Server* (1.2) is an entirely different OS from OSX Client (and future versions of OSX Server) Mach 2.5 vs Mach 3.0, Display Postscript vs. Quartz, Platinum appearance vs. Aqua, BSD 4.3 vs 4.4 (i think?)

So unless you actually plan to use OSXS 1.2, comparisons won't neccesarily hold true in the future.

Besides, the real interesting comparison is between OSXS and CP/M... I wonder if I can get my Kaypro II on ethernet



[Edited by endian on 02-23-2001 at 11:04 AM]
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Ha ha haaaaa
CP/M vs OSXS :p
Xmmm I have a copy of CP/M 86. Its only 250Kb I think LOL :p
That would be a comparison worth while... computers then....computers now :)


Admiral
 

theed

Registered
I use the hell out of OS X Server, and it's comparable to linux or other unices under most circumstances. It's a little bit slower, but that's usually negligeable, and everyone attributes that to the overhead of a true microkernel (mach) sitting under the OS.

The biggest performance hit is this - it doesn't like to distribute the entire processor to one process. Under heavy load with a lot of stuff going on it keeps up very well, but in light load situations, it sometimes just refuses to give the entire processor to one process. So, compiling takes longer than it feels like it should (twice as long) but apache tests come up with top of the line scores.
 

scruffy

Notorious Olive Counter
theed - I think that might be because of missing (not yet implemented) functionality in Darwin.

As far as I can tell, nice numbers have not been implemented. You can nice your processes all you want, using command line utilities, or that graphical nice utility that's out there, whatever. An idle process with nice 20 will get equal priority with a standard nice 0 user-space process, with a nice -15 kernel process.

I don't really know if this is going to be fixed by OS X's release, but I sure hope it will. It seems silly, there being a OS X specific nice utility, that doesn't actually change anything...
 

theed

Registered
I was talking about X Server shich isn't based on anything called Darwin ... but I think your point holds just the same. nice doesn't seem to exist.

Having attempted to write a thread scheduler, I can appreciate the added complexity of all of these levels of priority, but it sure would be nice (sic) to have some real prioritization. It would also be cool to be able to limit the max priority of any given user. Does anyone do that? Perhaps I'm concerned about ridiculous admin things for my webserver that no one else is going to care about, but if they're going industrial, don't do it half way.
 

strobe

Puny Member
nice is a bug listed on Darwin's bug repository at Apple. I don't think it's a high priority, no pun intended.

If it isn't fixed by the final release send a bunch of bug reports.
 
Top