OS X performance vs the OSs
- Thread starter AdmiralAK
- Start date
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]
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]
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
