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=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 23156 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2020 23:31:14 -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 23:31:14 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 445949C73E; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:31:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F609C72C; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:30:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5F46B9C72C; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:30:40 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 2077 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:30:37 AEST Received: from smtp1.via.net (smtp1.via.net [157.22.3.5]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A19BD9C72B for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:30:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [209.81.2.60] ([209.81.2.60]) by smtp1.via.net (8.15.2/8.14.1-VIANET) with ESMTP id 03CMtwh6017164; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:55:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at smtp1.via.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: joe mcguckin In-Reply-To: <2DE6E671-7FD2-463A-B2E7-7951DBD15CA0@planet.nl> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:55:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <37F9655C-D42C-4504-9926-129F6DF5C158@via.net> References: <2DE6E671-7FD2-463A-B2E7-7951DBD15CA0@planet.nl> To: Paul Ruizendaal X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (smtp1.via.net [157.22.3.5]); Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [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: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" I seem to remember that Sun was trying to sell boxes to the airline / = reservation industry, and one of the ways they came up with to make Solaris handle thousands of ascii terminals was to push the = character discipline code into streams in order to eliminate the = multiple user/kernel crossings per character being handled=E2=80=A6 Joe Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications joe@via.net 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax > On Apr 12, 2020, at 3:03 AM, Paul Ruizendaal wrote: >=20 >=20 >> 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? >=20 > It was streams, not STREAMS. >=20 >> 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). >=20 > STREAMS are outside the limited scope I try to restrain myself to, but = I=E2=80=99m intrigued. >=20 > What in the above case drove/caused the poor performance? >=20 > 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. >=20 > Did STREAMS also perform poorly in the 1986 context they were = developed in? >=20 > Paul >=20 > *) 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. >=20