From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 2300 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2023 20:32:59 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 Mar 2023 20:32:59 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E06415D2; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 06:32:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A29D8415D1 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 06:32:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id g18so8859796ljl.3 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 12:32:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678566769; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=rdgmjc6YL2jWLYKxC0FeEP961p5jXw8aP5chYRfBuJY=; b=Xs7g27Jfz/ZNIOi5PiwcdsfL0h7S0C1f/iKCt1C8Ldl7DOu6lJkt/6sm316csTGKKS fKcmQ4yOvgEuUFU1k1xP15fjkIYlMSh3yec7Q0ylDzUg/5dPEHYmz+Hc+5ZkNnR7z0Dd DxatbnC5UdSVTupGR0QnmDn56ltR+LVqwl3BTrFf527eICuh8QijsAr/GawVxzDmu8F4 ZovQMHQLv4WN3Zj9j66Vpm/iT+/Cqe1dh/z9L9ZepKEFwmYQZpFfoILiHr1ziDiICXI/ tvJkMp8Nq/K7vFHI+UKk06w6md8Dho9ByAqa+KoeYITrQYOoluyd185yD2d5lB/yrNdt ausg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678566769; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rdgmjc6YL2jWLYKxC0FeEP961p5jXw8aP5chYRfBuJY=; b=KMS+xxBfQxjrv/PzAiekVB/oOQuKmROK03/VRXi4CUSM2ASK4MSoilv+f+uCFJJT+n G9vlNHQ8dNVCdmPqRX7Gkdhu3Oon8VI/gpnXQ/9n+1f+B0v7eGQbS3SvfHjTzhNVn6/8 p4aeQNLbIMjFYoszRWCU3uUlZmWHhg/ekhjORxIcDQRhFYCbFf8OlmODEXeoygUlcQod /nkoPYs1qLoZ4CSLatnyr+pGuApnwp880YWrrxQO6r7LCaeYtARae6fGCQwH97Izk4Pa U1d7kDlRATMO/5mMqP29W/E9VrHsMvOiCQ0TsL45Y/+TsJiJLls/MD7n7H8FurhEMnDg d8kQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWXSgy+CSkN542t+42FRoJbyDK/fPxABdOymtLxt9hH7W0I+ciB WTDR9SHpIOCWgWBfeMbDZ+j3njjb9T3FoC3xg3gV22jP X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set99sELFgkzI/nAqZIgrf1raX7YGXSBvVvjme4HFdadD6wbu7F2+JKoZGmzb7lLQuJQxtnBo0qo8cyGU7TCD4vY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:314:b0:295:944c:f335 with SMTP id a20-20020a05651c031400b00295944cf335mr9229860ljp.1.1678566768608; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 12:32:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230309200932.GK9225@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20230309200932.GK9225@mcvoy.com> From: Dan Cross Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 15:32:12 -0500 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: 5B7OT6BHEJV2X5UF7E4TEGT2VVUAU3OT X-Message-ID-Hash: 5B7OT6BHEJV2X5UF7E4TEGT2VVUAU3OT X-MailFrom: crossd@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: John Cowan , ron minnich , COFF X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [COFF] Re: [TUHS] Re: the wheel of reincarnation goes sideways List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:09=E2=80=AFPM Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:55:44PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:22???PM John Cowan wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:53???PM Dan Cross wrote: > > >> But the > > >> 3090 was really more like a distributed system than the Athlon box > > >> was, with all sorts of offload capabilities. For that matter, a > > >> thousand users probably _could_ telnet into the Athlon system. With > > >> telnet in line mode, it'd probably even be decently responsive. > > > > > > I find that difficult to believe. It seems too high by an order of m= agnitude. > > > > I'm not going to claim it would be zippy, but I do think it would work > > acceptably. > > > > Suppose that 1000 users telnet'ed into the x86 machine, but remained > > essentially idle; what resources would that consume? We'd have 1000 > > open TCP connections, a thousand shell processes, a thousand > > telnetd's, etc. > > The early Unix code really did not like stuff like this. Lots of linear > scans through what were assumed to be short lists. I still remember an > SGI Challenge being brought to it's knees by a bunch of racks of modems. > The same machine could move a ton of data but not when it was being > forced through a zillion sockets. Oh for sure I wouldn't try it on a VAX or PDP-11. I'm a bit surprised by the SGI thing, to be honest, but only a bit: as you say, I think that was just before the big push to make Unix really scalable. > Linux seems well past that problem but it's possible that back in the > Athlon days it still sucked. I pinged Linus, if he remembers when the > kernel got taught to scale on sockets I'll report back. Thanks, I'm curious what he says. - Dan C.