From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <460E927E.4050002@conducive.org> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 00:55:26 +0800 From: W B Hacker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061030 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] slow performance References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 384fef1c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 pedro henrique antunes de oliveira wrote: > Well, i dont know if this is a plan9 question it self. > > I've writen a program using a data structure and the program spend about 30 > secs to finish the task, some tima later I've compiled the same program > under other operating system, (and the same computer) and the program > finish > the task with 3 secs. > > > anyone knows what can it be? > No definitive answer from me. But a guess: ISTR seeing that the Plan9 kernel 'lacked a scheduler'. That can be inconsequential for some situations, very important for others. That may be stale or even just plain wrong info. In any case, I'd like to know more myself about the relative effectivness of the 'native' Plan9 & its kernel vs other 'real', not 'virtual' OS'en. Being able to 'plumb' and network inherently 'better' is not all that useful if a less-elegant OS does better with the BFBI API set. Any benchmarks (yeah they lie, but ....) around? Bill