From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 77f8b5e5 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 16:29:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 39957A2053; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 02:29:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAC7A1A20; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 02:29:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kev009.com header.i=@kev009.com header.b=nllLN+Rm; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8B005A1A20; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 02:29:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com (mail-io0-f195.google.com [209.85.223.195]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EBBEA1A1A for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 02:29:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-io0-f195.google.com with SMTP id q5-v6so12836288iop.3 for ; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 09:29:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kev009.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X67cGHcckUI2CdYuA1yjLeSi3OfahyaCr3EXLmhJ6N0=; b=nllLN+Rm4SSdn8Ve01McymRdVh7MK/LWX8HxUrhkoIApi/9h5kLtQQ8bQFYaVvqAZy E3DHCDbxuRQTyIG0u5bRcM0AZcAcl8xgO/D70y+tResru4rmIjcE8ABmM4i37Ju9Jc0V a6KLbAih7LCCjGobZSZ2xtvjD0QIFFoGJxaPA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X67cGHcckUI2CdYuA1yjLeSi3OfahyaCr3EXLmhJ6N0=; b=ZGrYg0CNRYqVQgGow0DxS8P0Oj0rpFoXhu0LxPj0MmfMVYhOIEypSHEwo3iAp6XRl5 HP3MrFitWZCe0AI2i5StRo+o9DN/VmuWjJYqoLCtboLUjcAHHbKQDtvU7H7sXF97Nts+ Y7JSTZHUGVJFj65qnULej91w8PBkjnTzK9Y6bKaCLUpKQjsemFpwOodksZdsGbxHnPsA wM6qA2zsrXPgn1nQTlGs7kin7s9NCYDRsvYT4dyT3ofL8eGQkB9tAKMPfepQgsvDlJjl kJrsDvmxBSaZTYVkdeYg1Lop9hxcz24YsWKH+BJHqVCaLAsxROzDaBB4r/aAm55rsNk+ xiAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51ANl/4gE6Lg9iThnn8ocwtrpLQT/n8dRH9ywLquLfvq1pK962JD rn8ugGMzkxfsha8Qd1i64ReXspR7tT6yucbv1aA3XGsMmZg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaJGz1urVr8ho8Eq0Nm0bhc4FODAJew7Lo2PQbb7KugpoIYn2Xe5fNgrDouNUuJcrt5Oy8fusoH2LGGZZgEfOQ= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9745:: with SMTP id h5-v6mr11296576ioq.257.1535819372588; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a02:3543:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 09:29:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180901032318.GD27277@thunk.org> References: <20180830213407.6DC4718C0A6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20180831213451.r7LAj%ca6c@bitmessage.ch> <20180831215854.GB28971@mcvoy.com> <7ed51612-82d7-90ca-ceaf-37b0c869ff93@kilonet.net> <20180901015741.GN28971@mcvoy.com> <20180901032318.GD27277@thunk.org> From: Kevin Bowling Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 09:29:31 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] SunOS code? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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 am surprised how good Sun's technical marketing was for you to think this. Linux has scaled better since the early 2000s. The Solaris x86-64 port has some real gaffes in it to this day at least as visible in the OpenSolaris derivative codebases, serialization in the locking primitives kind of things. On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 06:57:41PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> But all that said, you need to be specific about what perf you care >> about. These days the kernel is far more complicated, NUMA etc, >> and you might care about parallel make (I doubt it) or you might care >> about Oracle or something like that. > > It wouldn't surprise me if Solaris was more scalable for gazillion > dollar SMP machines with a huge number of cores. That was one of the > reason as I recall why Solaris had a reputation of being slow; being > scalable to big (and much more profitable) servers was considered more > important than the smaller systems that were probably more numerous > (but not nearly as profitable). > > - Ted