G
gnaynit
Mabey this is whats wrong with my windows
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=3D459&tag=3Dnl.e550
'Unix beats Windows' - says Microsoft!
Ok, that headline may be a bit overblown - but Microsoft Research has released part of=
a report on the "Singularity" kernel they've been working on as part of their planned=
shift to network computing. The report includes some performance comparisons that=
show Singularity beating everything else on a 1.8Ghz AMD Athlon-based machine.
What's noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to FreeBSD and Li=
nux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result shows Windows losing to the two Uni=
x variants.
For example, they show the number of CPU cycles needed to "create and start a process"=
as 1,032,000 for FreeBSD, 719,000 for Linux, and 5,376,000 for Windows/XP. Similar=
ly they provide four graphs comparing raw disk I/O and show the Unix variants beating=
Windows/XP in three (and a half) of the four cases.
Oddly, however, it's the cases in which they report Windows/XP as beating Unix that a=
re the most interesting. There are three examples of this: one in which they count the=
CPU cycles needed for a "thread yield" as 911 for FreeBSD, 906 for Linux, and 753 for Wi=
ndows XP; one in which they count CPU cycles for a "2 thread wait-set ping pong" as 4,70=
7 for FreeBSD, 4,041 for Linux, and 1,658 for Windows/XP; and, one in which they repor=
t that "for the sequential read operations, Windows XP performed significantly bet=
ter than the other systems for block sizes less than 8 kilobytes."
So how did they get these results?
=
The sequential tests read or wrote 512MB of data from the same portion of the hard disk=
.. The random read and write tests performed 1000 operations on the same sequences of b=
locks on the disk. The tests were single threaded and performed synchronous raw I/O.=
Each test was run seven times and the results averaged. =
umm=E2=80=A6
=
The Unix thread tests ran on user-space scheduled pthreads. Kernel scheduled threa=
ds performed significantly worse. The "wait-set ping pong" test measured the cost o=
f switching between two threads in the same process through a synchronization objec=
t. The "2 message ping pong" measured the cost of sending a 1-byte message from one pro=
cess to another and then back to the original process. On Unix, we used sockets, on Win=
dows, a named pipe, and on Singularity, a channel. =
So why is this interesting? Because their test methods reflect Windows internals, n=
ot Unix kernel design. There are better, faster, ways of doing these things in Unix, b=
ut these guys - among the best and brightest programmers working at Microsoft- eithe=
r didn't know or didn't care.
And if they're the best and brightest, what do you think happens when the average Micr=
osoft programming whiz gets asked to program for Linux?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=3D459&tag=3Dnl.e550
'Unix beats Windows' - says Microsoft!
Ok, that headline may be a bit overblown - but Microsoft Research has released part of=
a report on the "Singularity" kernel they've been working on as part of their planned=
shift to network computing. The report includes some performance comparisons that=
show Singularity beating everything else on a 1.8Ghz AMD Athlon-based machine.
What's noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to FreeBSD and Li=
nux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result shows Windows losing to the two Uni=
x variants.
For example, they show the number of CPU cycles needed to "create and start a process"=
as 1,032,000 for FreeBSD, 719,000 for Linux, and 5,376,000 for Windows/XP. Similar=
ly they provide four graphs comparing raw disk I/O and show the Unix variants beating=
Windows/XP in three (and a half) of the four cases.
Oddly, however, it's the cases in which they report Windows/XP as beating Unix that a=
re the most interesting. There are three examples of this: one in which they count the=
CPU cycles needed for a "thread yield" as 911 for FreeBSD, 906 for Linux, and 753 for Wi=
ndows XP; one in which they count CPU cycles for a "2 thread wait-set ping pong" as 4,70=
7 for FreeBSD, 4,041 for Linux, and 1,658 for Windows/XP; and, one in which they repor=
t that "for the sequential read operations, Windows XP performed significantly bet=
ter than the other systems for block sizes less than 8 kilobytes."
So how did they get these results?
=
The sequential tests read or wrote 512MB of data from the same portion of the hard disk=
.. The random read and write tests performed 1000 operations on the same sequences of b=
locks on the disk. The tests were single threaded and performed synchronous raw I/O.=
Each test was run seven times and the results averaged. =
umm=E2=80=A6
=
The Unix thread tests ran on user-space scheduled pthreads. Kernel scheduled threa=
ds performed significantly worse. The "wait-set ping pong" test measured the cost o=
f switching between two threads in the same process through a synchronization objec=
t. The "2 message ping pong" measured the cost of sending a 1-byte message from one pro=
cess to another and then back to the original process. On Unix, we used sockets, on Win=
dows, a named pipe, and on Singularity, a channel. =
So why is this interesting? Because their test methods reflect Windows internals, n=
ot Unix kernel design. There are better, faster, ways of doing these things in Unix, b=
ut these guys - among the best and brightest programmers working at Microsoft- eithe=
r didn't know or didn't care.
And if they're the best and brightest, what do you think happens when the average Micr=
osoft programming whiz gets asked to program for Linux?