Text 8160, 70 rader
Skriven 2005-11-10 17:24:42 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: 'Unix beats Windows' - says Microsoft!
==============================================
From: Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com>


http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459

===
Ok, that headline may be a bit overblown - but Microsoft Research has released
part of a report on the "Singularity" kernel they've been working on as part of
their planned shift to network computing. The report includes some performance
comparisons that show Singularity beating everything else on a 1.8Ghz AMD
Athlon-based machine.

What's noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to FreeBSD
and Linux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result shows Windows losing
to the two Unix variants.

For example, they show the number of CPU cycles needed to "create and start a
process" as 1,032,000 for FreeBSD, 719,000 for Linux, and 5,376,000 for
Windows/XP. Similarly they provide four graphs comparing raw disk I/O and show
the Unix variants beating Windows/XP in three (and a half) of the four cases.

Oddly, however, it's the cases in which they report Windows/XP as beating Unix
that are the most interesting. There are three examples of this: one in which
they count the CPU cycles needed for a "thread yield" as 911 for FreeBSD, 906
for Linux, and 753 for Windows XP; one in which they count CPU cycles for a "2
thread wait-set ping pong" as 4,707 for FreeBSD, 4,041 for Linux, and 1,658 for
Windows/XP; and, one in which they report that "for the sequential read
operations, Windows XP performed significantly better than the other systems
for block sizes less than 8 kilobytes."

So how did they get these results?

   The sequential tests read or wrote 512MB of data from the same
   portion of the hard disk. The random read and write tests
   performed 1000 operations on the same sequences of blocks on
   the disk. The tests were single threaded and performed
   synchronous raw I/O. Each test was run seven times and the
   results averaged.

umm…

   The Unix thread tests ran on user-space scheduled pthreads.
   Kernel scheduled threads performed significantly worse. The
   "wait-set ping pong" test measured the cost of switching between
   two threads in the same process through a synchronization object.
   The "2 message ping pong" measured the cost of sending a 1-byte
   message from one process to another and then back to the original
   process. On Unix, we used sockets, on Windows, a named pipe, and
   on Singularity, a channel.

So why is this interesting? Because their test methods reflect Windows
internals, not Unix kernel design. There are better, faster, ways of doing
these things in Unix, but these guys - among the best and brightest programmers
working at Microsoft- either didn't know or didn't care.

And if they're the best and brightest, what do you think happens when the
average Microsoft programming whiz gets asked to program for Linux?
===


"For example, they show the number of CPU cycles needed to "create and start a
process" as 1,032,000 for FreeBSD, 719,000 for Linux, and 5,376,000 for
Windows/XP."

Wow.

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)