Performance differences between 386 Unices

[Chin Fang]

bill>  Using this test of disk performance I find that SCO Xenix has better
bill>performance than any of the V.3 or V.4 variants I've tried.
bill>
bill>  Test conditions: unloaded system, multiuser mode, typically 4MB to 8MB
bill>memory. Write performed by a C program looping writing 1k blocks. Time
bill>from the time system call.
bill>
bill>  You are the sole judge of how well the results of this test apply to
bill>any productive work you may run on the machine.
bill>-- 
bill>bill davidsen - davidsen at sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
Bill's test is very similar to a comprehensive test of sco xenix 386, micropot
386/at unix, enix(now esix) rev.a, and a few others conducted by MIPS magazine
(now Personal Workstation) about two years ago.  MIPS testers used very 
similar machine configurations to Bill's. And most interestingly, their 
conclusions are also close to Bill's given above. (MIPS obviously didn't have
R4 available for test, however)
 
I still remember that one MIPS tester mentioned that in terms of memory 
requirement, SCO 386 xenix won hands down.  Over years of refinement(?), SCO
indeed reduced the kernal size of 386 than any of UNIX V5 R3.2.

People interested in what MIPS did can go to library and check it out. MIPS
is somewhat a new magazine started barely three years ago(?).
 
Chin Fang
Mechanical Engineering Department
Stanford University
[Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Div.]
fangchin at portia.stanford.edu
fang at rocket.cadcam.rok.com