* Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459
>
> "What?s noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to FreeBSD
> and Linux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result shows Windows losing
> to the two Unix 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.?"
Oddly, however, it's the cases in which they report Windows/XP
as beating Unix that are 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 Windows
XP; one in which they count CPU cycles for a "2 thread wait-set ping
pong" as 4,707 for FreeBSD, 4,041 for Linux, and 1,658 for
Windows/XP; and, one in which they report that "for the sequential
read operations, Windows XP performed significantly better than the
other systems for block sizes less than 8 kilobytes."
. . .
So why is this interesting? Because their test methods reflect
Windows internals, not Unix kernel design. There are better, faster,
ways of doing these things in Unix, but these guys - among the best
and brightest programmers working at Microsoft- either didn't
know or didn't care.
And if they're the best and brightest, what do you think happens
when the average Microsoft programming whiz gets asked to program for
Linux?
The Microsoft document does look like an interesting read, though:
ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-135.pdf
--
Nothing is a problem once you debug the code.
-- John Carmack
|
|
