Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!sauron!campbell From: campbell@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Mark Campbell) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.arch Subject: Re: XENIX 386 benchmark results Message-ID: <915@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM> Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 12:54:06 EDT Article-I.D.: sauron.915 Posted: Wed Jul 15 12:54:06 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jul-87 06:38:01 EDT References: <127@spdcc.COM> <1090@killer.UUCP> <201@pvab.UUCP> <225@diab.UUCP> Reply-To: campbell@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Mark Campbell) Organization: Advanced Systems Development, NCR Corp., Columbia, SC Lines: 14 Xref: mnetor comp.unix.xenix:476 comp.arch:1600 In article <225@diab.UUCP> ps@.UUCP (Per-Erik Sundberg) writes: >In article <201@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: > [...] Speaking of Xenix... Does anyone know why the 80286 and 80386-based Xenix machines perform the AIM 2.0 forks per second test so well? I've been seeing numbers lately of between 90 and 120 forks per second on several PC's. I'm wondering if the high numbers are a result of the 80x86 architecture, the Xenix kernel implementation of fork, the libraries, compiler, etc. Thanks. -- Mark Campbell {}!ncsu!ncrcae!sauron!campbell