Text File

Aucbvax.5564 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!unix-wizards Sat Dec 26 22:46:07 1981 Responses to Perkin Elmer Unix query (60 lines) >From dave@UCLA-Security Sat Dec 26 22:32:09 1981 Here are the three responses I got to my query regarding Unix on a Perkin Elmer 3200 series computer. Since there was some interest, I am redistributing them to the list.

From: lee at UTEXAS-11 (Bill Lee)

Several of us from UT were up at the Dallas PE sales office several months back and Wollongong was demoing their Unix. This was just before PE had announced the availability of Unix for their machines. We had a couple of hours of hands on time and it looked like a real Unix (it should be). However, the performance wasn't very good. This was explained away as being a configuration problem, i.e. they must have specified available memory wrong or something. Maybe but it was pretty slow. Slower running 2 or 3 users than our 11/70 is with 6 users. Even doing a man <FOO> would produce several very noticeable pauses (about every 20 lines or so) even if I was the only one actually running anything. I believe that this was on a 3220. The other thing was that we managed to crash the system twice without trying. The first time was a C program that looped on doing a fork and a wait. The same program does not crash our 11/70. The next time we tried it from the shell. In a shell while loop we ran /usr/games/cooky. This also put the machine in the weeds. This also irritated the guys from Wallongong because they we trying to demo to business types when this happened. We couldn't reproduce the Shell loop crash but it swamped the CPU when we ran it again. They claimed that they were coming out with an optimizer that will make C programs run much faster. My recomendation is to run some real loads on the machine that you are considering before buying and see if you can really get the performance you want.

From: ucbvax!chico!duke!unc!smb In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin

Jim Ellis, Lynn TennEyck, and I ran some evaluations and benchmarks on PE UNIX this past spring. Basically, it's straight V7; they've resisted the temptation to make "improvements". The benchmarks showed it inferior to 4BSD, but the optimizer on the C compiler was broken that day, and we *had* recompiled the kernel. Overall, I'd say it was a nice system, but needed more work to improve reliability and performance, and to remove a few warts. The most notable wart was that the maximum stack size is set statically at link time.

From: ucbvax!chico!duke!jte

1) I believe I have convinced them to modify the compiler to be smarter about how much stack space to allocate, and to give a reasonable run-time msg when one runs out.

2) The F77 compiler also had problems (notably complex variables) but they like the idea of putting their Fortran up under unix. That should be an attraction if it is ever done.

3) The machine has auto-reboot hardware which they do not take advantage of since it is a V7 system. On the other hand, they have ported UCB's vi and csh. I don't know if I was able to convince them to make use of the auto-reboot hardware or not. They haven't done it yet.

Thank you for your responses. Dave

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.