From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 19008 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2020 10:03:47 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (minnie.tuhs.org: domain of minnie.tuhs.org designates 45.79.103.53 as permitted sender) receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=45.79.103.53 envelope-from= Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 12 Apr 2020 10:03:47 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7A2999C189; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 20:03:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB1294488; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 20:03:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=planet.nl header.i=@planet.nl header.b="YYxs58ab"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id ADFF494488; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 20:03:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com [213.75.39.9]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB3794486 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 20:03:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cpsps-ews29.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.195]) by cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:03:24 +0200 X-Brand: 7abm2Q== X-KPN-SpamVerdict: e1=0;e2=0;e3=0;e4=(e1=10;e3=10;e2=11;e4=10);EVW:Whi te;BM:NotScanned;FinalVerdict:Clean X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=A4b3w5eG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 cx=a_idp_e a=4/rmT19p7yX2nqNQQg5uwQ==:117 a=soxbC+bCkqwFbqeW/W/r+Q==:17 a=x1i13A_MHe4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=cl8xLZFz6L8A:10 a=UvliI9F_w-ymR_iYTqwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-CM-AcctID: kpn@feedback.cloudmark.com Received: from smtp.kpnmail.nl ([195.121.84.44]) by cpsps-ews29.kpnxchange.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:03:24 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=planet.nl; s=planet01; h=to:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type:from; bh=lzwqrz9Y5yU6AtoCEqllVHgHqwnEH9H+kXeGu2g/Ffs=; b=YYxs58abRj1SltNCqz/2btepQsdeZ2ObLMmFdRmEMULiEWxcEvckwwLicYr8dcyLTYw5WzcBebCtH ewCKCjN3ILQqPCr5s7NujkRkq+4mTgaRNgjg+3ZvktiE3R8tOxBg/Me3aveTwM46S10zzozz+QdCzP +rF4EaXkx1ZzT4YE= X-KPN-VerifiedSender: Yes X-CMASSUN: 33|oXL2du58+8S1vP051XE3fPGzo+k15UZ31PjOKlLP3ikrbvlf/BYyHQKTjf8E3CL chvBNvqNFkJVV53Q2R6yXXQ== X-Originating-IP: 80.101.112.122 Received: from mba2.fritz.box (sqlite.xs4all.nl [80.101.112.122]) by smtp.kpnmail.nl (Halon) with ESMTPSA id d893281e-7ca4-11ea-b0f1-005056abf0db; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:03:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul Ruizendaal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Message-Id: <2DE6E671-7FD2-463A-B2E7-7951DBD15CA0@planet.nl> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:03:23 +0200 To: TUHS main list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2020 10:03:24.0115 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A7D0A30:01D610B1] X-RcptDomain: minnie.tuhs.org Subject: [TUHS] STREAMS performance X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" > Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 08:44:28 -0700 > From: Larry McVoy >=20 > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:38:44AM -0400, Norman Wilson wrote: >> -- Stream I/O system added; all communication-device >> drivers (serial ports, Ethernet, Datakit) changed to >> work with streams. Pipes were streams. >=20 > How was performance? Was this Dennis' streams, not Sys V STREAMS? It was streams, not STREAMS. > I ported Lachmans/Convergents STREAMS based TCP/IP stack to the > ETA 10 Unix and SCO Unix and performance just sucked. Ditto for > the Solaris port (which I did not do, I don't think it made any > difference who did the port though). STREAMS are outside the limited scope I try to restrain myself to, but = I=E2=80=99m intrigued. What in the above case drove/caused the poor performance? There was a debate on the LKML in the late 1990=E2=80=99s where Caldera = wanted STREAMS support in Linux and to the extent the arguments were = technical *), my understanding of them is that the main show stopper was = that STREAMS would make =E2=80=98zero copy=E2=80=99 networking = impossible. If so, then it is a comment more about the underlying buffer = strategy than STREAMS itself. Did STREAMS also perform poorly in the 1986 context they were developed = in? Paul *) Other arguments pro- and con included forward maintenance and market = need, but I=E2=80=99m not so interested in those aspects of the debate.