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