There is apparently nothing whatever wrong with the ppc processor in terms of performance. To summarize, we demonstrate the reproducibility of analytical results when GUIdock-VNC is deployed on different browsers and different operating systems.Yes, this is the point that leaps out at me too. 3 shows screenshots of using (a) Internet Explorer on Windows 8.1, (b) Google Chrome on Ubuntu Linux, (c) Safari on Mac OS, and (d) Google Chrome on Android.And it doesn’t have so many it can afford to lose any. The miraculous marketing machine is going to have a harder and harder time turning on a dime and taking all its customers with it. That is really very interesting, and it does indeed promise a most interesting couple of years ahead. And there may be cost advantages to the move, though perhaps, not clear, at some performance hit. There is something wrong with the OS apparently, and whatever it is, it is not wrong with Linux, and it is not getting fixed at all fast.Their desktop business isn’t going to attract anywhere near something that Dell gets, but if they go for Intel inside iPods they might.All that moving to yet another hardware platform and all sorts of bogues reason as to why Steve? Oh dear.He spends a lot of time discussing fork and rationalizing why it’s suitable for at least hypothesizing about thread performance. The arstechnica article about Apple’s bulging memory requirements and compilation settings are interesting also.It’s also become clear that the only reason why Apple have moved is simply for Intel’s supply (previous chip partners have been driven to despair by their constant stripe changing) and volume discounts. And Apple are talking about power per watt?! Hell yer! It’s called a G5, and it’s power management is better than anything Intel will have over the next few years.It’s going to be amusing to watch all these Mac enthusiasts drooling over their new fast Intel workstations when they will still continue to see benchmarks where Linux and Windows continue to kick their backsides, but this time on exactly the same hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a G5 machine whatsoever in terms of performance (as everyone has known really), and the only reason why Apple wanted a 3GHz+ G5 was because their OS is simply too damn slow and crap. They are following the old BCG model, where what you do with a cash cow is milk it for all its worth.So basically Apple have been lying through their teeth when complaining about IBM and the G5s.
I’d say “find the hard facts and then report,” but on the other hand I think these articles highlight important performance aspects of MacOS X. We need to look elsewhere for those.”Also what’s also rather important–perhaps more so than creation, especially when not dealing with green threads at all–about a lot of threads doing roughly similar tasks that call into the kernel a lot, is locking performance.I’d like some cold hard facts. Process creation is also much more expensive with NT than Linux, but I couldn’t in good conscience tell you that is directly useful for comparing thread creation performance.“LMBench gives us a rough indication that we might be right, but it doesn’t give us cold hard facts. Use the psx2 emulator on macHowever, for large server farms and other High Performance Computing areas the XServe seems to be well recieved. Let’s face it, for the money an XServe server isn’t a cost-effective solution. Granted, there is some growth in that market, but that isn’t a market that would go OSX anyhow. Linux Apache and Windows IIS pretty much has a stranglehold on that market. MySQL doesn’t use signal-driven I/O, and to the best of my knowledge its signal handling is only used for explicit remote client termination and process control.“Despite the FreeBSD heritage, the TCP signals are very slow (4 times slower!) on Mac OS X.”This makes me go, “Huh?” Is “sig tcp” really the time reported for catching a signal, or has lmbench changed? I suppose I’ll have to investigate what exactly that’s supposed to be.From what I can tell Apple doesn’t really give a damn about the webserver market. Apple as always is fighting the smart fight and is not even worried about the apache/mysql webserver market. Now, in terms of easy management of HPC I don’t Windows or Linux even come close to OSX. Also, with Xgrid, setup for ad-hoc supercomputing on OSX is incredibly easy. It dosn’t matter that they are free, their quality is such that no one but geeks would pay $5 to be able to use them.Yes, I do use some OSS software, such as Adium, Subversion, Trac, gcc, etc. I would submit that most of the programs you get to choose from are deficient enough that not one would ever PAY to use them. Linux always wins…because it’s “free” and has more “choice” between a bunch of half written programs.You talk about “choice”. You obviously look at this from a geek perspective, even fitting the cliche of doing it from your basement….but since you are so busy in your basement….let me clue you into how the real world works….Your other posts and comments indicate that you are really just one of these FSF/GNU people. However, in terms of everyday use of email, KelsonI don’t consider it to be a lie….I’ve used Linux…for a very long time, since 1991/1992….In the interest of full disclosure, I did migrate from Linux to Solaris x86.I certainly think that Linux has it’s pluses and minuses, but overall, it is NOT as usable as OS X. Until then, run linux for all your webserver needs. This means anything running the BSD subsystem is going to be splitting up the time used by a SINGLE Mach thread. See how this is going?|-> Other Mach thread (Native OS X application)Now let’s say that Mach only knows about the mach threads (totally reasonable to assume) it’s going to schedule the BSD subsystem as a single process (which it is). There are pthreads implementations for BSD, Linux, etc.It’s reasonable to assume that the pthreads implementation that MySQL is running upon is running on the BSD subsystem in OS X, which is most likely (from what I understand) running as a single process on the Mach kernel. OSX 10.4 is very stable for me, while FreeBSD 5 has left much to be desired (including simply refusing to boot on several of my machines, and hard crashes on others).The other route is that which the DragonFly developers are taking — making essentially everything rely upon in-kernel messaging. Apple has taken an approach somewhat similar to FreeBSD’s whether it works remains to be seen. It’s better than it was on FreeBSD 4, for that matter. Linux, they were brought up to hilight the fact that the previous test may not have been a fair comparison under the scope it was conducted.Personally, I applaud the authors for trying to make the test as un-biased as possible. NetBSD has added Mach IPC support, but that was in order to provide Darwin binary compatibility.Did I miss something? Wasn’t the point of these two articles to try and nail down the elusive issue of comparing performance between ppc and x86 ? The thread handling issues of OS X weren’t primarily brought up as a deficiency of OS X vs. At the time that Apple was updating NeXTSTEP to become OSX, nothing that wasn’t Mach supported them. On any kernel that doesn’t support them, the message calls have to be emulated by libraries and translated to native system calls (see: OpenStep for Solaris or Win32 and GNUStep).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorDominic ArchivesCategories |