And there may be cost advantages to the move, though perhaps, not clear, at some performance hit. There is something wrong with the OS apparently, and whatever it is, it is not wrong with Linux, and it is not getting fixed at all fast. Changing processors is not going to do anything for performance – in fact, it may lower it.
![]() Best Linux 2016 Ppc G5 Mac Enthusiasts DroolingTheir desktop business isn’t going to attract anywhere near something that Dell gets, but if they go for Intel inside iPods they might.All that moving to yet another hardware platform and all sorts of bogues reason as to why Steve? Oh dear.He spends a lot of time discussing fork and rationalizing why it’s suitable for at least hypothesizing about thread performance. The arstechnica article about Apple’s bulging memory requirements and compilation settings are interesting also.It’s also become clear that the only reason why Apple have moved is simply for Intel’s supply (previous chip partners have been driven to despair by their constant stripe changing) and volume discounts. And Apple are talking about power per watt?! Hell yer! It’s called a G5, and it’s power management is better than anything Intel will have over the next few years.It’s going to be amusing to watch all these Mac enthusiasts drooling over their new fast Intel workstations when they will still continue to see benchmarks where Linux and Windows continue to kick their backsides, but this time on exactly the same hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a G5 machine whatsoever in terms of performance (as everyone has known really), and the only reason why Apple wanted a 3GHz+ G5 was because their OS is simply too damn slow and crap. Fast Download.So basically Apple have been lying through their teeth when complaining about IBM and the G5s.![]() MySQL doesn’t use signal-driven I/O, and to the best of my knowledge its signal handling is only used for explicit remote client termination and process control.“Despite the FreeBSD heritage, the TCP signals are very slow (4 times slower!) on Mac OS X.”This makes me go, “Huh?” Is “sig tcp” really the time reported for catching a signal, or has lmbench changed? I suppose I’ll have to investigate what exactly that’s supposed to be.From what I can tell Apple doesn’t really give a damn about the webserver market. I can only hope that a third installment will provide data.There’s also the part where he discusses signals. I’d say “find the hard facts and then report,” but on the other hand I think these articles highlight important performance aspects of MacOS X. We need to look elsewhere for those.”Also what’s also rather important–perhaps more so than creation, especially when not dealing with green threads at all–about a lot of threads doing roughly similar tasks that call into the kernel a lot, is locking performance.I’d like some cold hard facts. Process creation is also much more expensive with NT than Linux, but I couldn’t in good conscience tell you that is directly useful for comparing thread creation performance.“LMBench gives us a rough indication that we might be right, but it doesn’t give us cold hard facts. Now, in terms of easy management of HPC I don’t Windows or Linux even come close to OSX. Also, with Xgrid, setup for ad-hoc supercomputing on OSX is incredibly easy. Looking at Apple’s Xserve page Apple knows their exact market and targets the areas of scientific HPC. However, for large server farms and other High Performance Computing areas the XServe seems to be well recieved. Let’s face it, for the money an XServe server isn’t a cost-effective solution. Granted, there is some growth in that market, but that isn’t a market that would go OSX anyhow. Linux always wins…because it’s “free” and has more “choice” between a bunch of half written programs.You talk about “choice”. You obviously look at this from a geek perspective, even fitting the cliche of doing it from your basement….but since you are so busy in your basement….let me clue you into how the real world works….Your other posts and comments indicate that you are really just one of these FSF/GNU people. However, in terms of everyday use of email, KelsonI don’t consider it to be a lie….I’ve used Linux…for a very long time, since 1991/1992….In the interest of full disclosure, I did migrate from Linux to Solaris x86.I certainly think that Linux has it’s pluses and minuses, but overall, it is NOT as usable as OS X. Until then, run linux for all your webserver needs. Perhaps in a version or two the threading issues will be minimized. There are pthreads implementations for BSD, Linux, etc.It’s reasonable to assume that the pthreads implementation that MySQL is running upon is running on the BSD subsystem in OS X, which is most likely (from what I understand) running as a single process on the Mach kernel. But I’m glad I’ve got enough quality commercial software that I only have to supplement my commercial applications with OSS, not rely entirely on it.Consider this a flame if you like, but I think our requirements are different enough, that what you consider usable, for me is completely unacceptable, and vice versa.First of, OS X is a Mach kernel, not a BSD kernel.The BSD subsystem runs as a service (process, thread) ON TOP of the Mach kernel.Pthreads is a common (often lowest common denominator) threading library. It dosn’t matter that they are free, their quality is such that no one but geeks would pay $5 to be able to use them.Yes, I do use some OSS software, such as Adium, Subversion, Trac, gcc, etc. Apple has taken an approach somewhat similar to FreeBSD’s whether it works remains to be seen. It’s better than it was on FreeBSD 4, for that matter. YEAH.I’m completely unsure of the state of the OS X BSD subsystem in relation to the BGL from FreeBSD, which may further complicate I/O functions in regards to everything getting scheduled as a single process in the Mach kernel.Linux, on the other hand has a native pthreads wrapper that maps pthreads 1 to 1 with linux threads.Compare a compile of MySQL on OS X that uses a pthreads -> Mach thread wrapper, and uses native OS X / Mach (not BSD subsystem) API’s to MySQL on Linux and _then_ I’ll consider this a valid comparison.Untill then, you’re bitching that a platform emulation layer isn’t working as fast as the real platforms do.Of course, the situation in OSX is far better than what it was with NeXTSTEP. This means anything running the BSD subsystem is going to be splitting up the time used by a SINGLE Mach thread. At the time that Apple was updating NeXTSTEP to become OSX, nothing that wasn’t Mach supported them. On any kernel that doesn’t support them, the message calls have to be emulated by libraries and translated to native system calls (see: OpenStep for Solaris or Win32 and GNUStep). That makes distributing the LWKTs among processors very easy.The reason, of course, that Apple stuck with Mach is because the Cocoa/ObjC frameworks are designed to use Mach IPC natively. Civ vi mac torrent pirate bayNo doubt there are technical points that could be nitpicked (as they pointed out themselves) but at least they tried to cut through the hype. Linux, they were brought up to hilight the fact that the previous test may not have been a fair comparison under the scope it was conducted.Personally, I applaud the authors for trying to make the test as un-biased as possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorSteven ArchivesCategories |