From: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser]
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:45:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302060841200.10630-100000@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <006e01c2cdf5$eb2187c0$4ef0b487@bl.belllabs.com>
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan wrote:
> I wouldnt worry about the 10% performance difference between Plan 9
> implementation and FreeBSD or Linux.
No, my note said "10% on one TCP benchmark in 1996 which Plan 9 was
expected to win". That's actually a bit different from "10% performance
difference". 1996 was a long time ago; freebsd just keeps getting faster.
The real question for me is whether the speed difference is fundamental or
not. I don't know enough to know. It's an issue here because I've been
pushing Plan 9 as a possible future OS for DOE use (assuming we can get
the legal mess fixed), due to its really nice architecture. But if it is
not ever going to be competitive performance-wise with *nux* then that is
a huge problem. If it is fixable, well, there will be money to fix it at
some point (again, assuming Lucent can provide a sane license agreement).
ron
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-06 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-06 5:28 okamoto
2003-02-06 5:40 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-02-06 15:15 ` Ronald G. Minnich
2003-02-06 15:39 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
2003-02-06 15:45 ` Ronald G. Minnich [this message]
2003-02-06 16:31 ` rob pike, esq.
2003-02-06 16:36 ` rob pike, esq.
2003-02-06 16:56 ` matt
2003-02-06 17:11 ` Ronald G. Minnich
2003-02-06 17:25 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
2003-02-06 17:32 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-02-06 17:44 ` Sam
2003-02-06 18:07 ` Ronald G. Minnich
2003-02-06 18:14 ` David Presotto
2003-02-06 18:17 ` Ronald G. Minnich
2003-02-06 20:36 ` Dean Prichard
2003-02-06 18:35 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-02-06 18:43 ` David Presotto
2003-02-06 19:12 ` David Presotto
2003-02-06 19:20 ` Scott Schwartz
2003-02-06 17:06 ` [9fans] Re: Clean Code & Performance Jack Johnson
2003-02-06 17:23 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] David Butler
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-07 1:46 okamoto
2003-02-06 20:13 Keith Nash
2003-02-06 21:29 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
2003-02-06 21:33 ` Russ Cox
2003-02-06 21:40 ` Jack Johnson
2003-02-07 8:44 ` Richard Miller
2003-02-07 13:51 ` matt
2003-02-07 14:03 ` Boyd Roberts
2003-02-07 0:06 ` Geoff Collyer
2003-02-07 5:32 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2003-02-06 17:50 C H Forsyth
2003-02-06 18:08 ` Ronald G. Minnich
2003-02-06 1:19 [9fans] Webbrowser Russ Cox
2003-02-06 3:00 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] andrey mirtchovski
2003-02-06 4:16 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-02-06 14:24 ` David Presotto
2003-02-06 15:30 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-02-06 17:32 ` David Presotto
2003-02-06 18:10 ` William K. Josephson
2003-02-06 18:16 ` Ronald G. Minnich
2003-02-06 18:23 ` William K. Josephson
2003-02-06 21:09 ` Ronald G. Minnich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44.0302060841200.10630-100000@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov \
--to=rminnich@lanl.gov \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).