From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: SysV
Summary: Just remind them what else it DOES have at the same time
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:22:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.193742.4707@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>In article <BvAIvF.22n@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>ODT is also a 3.2 release.  It IS NOT SVR4.
>
>Here's a clue, Karl:  the original poster complained about the lack of
>certain things from SysV, all of which both SysVr4 and SCO's 3.2v4 have.
>Did the person ask for SysVr4?  No.  Does the person need SysVr4?  Well, if
>(s)he wants BSD, then SysVr4 is probably better than 3.2v4, unless, of
>course, (s)he does not have as much memory or disk, in which case (s)he
>should decide what (s)he wants to do.

Yep.  But if you load all the ODT stuff, you may as well load the SVR4
stuff.  Not really that much difference in terms of disk space.

When you consider that there is no requirement to "set aside" RAM on a V.4
machine for buffers (its dynamically used as available), the balance becomes
even more neutral.  My system is faster with V.4 than V.3.2 with identical
RAM under heavy load precisely due to the fact that the system can use all
available memory for disk buffer cache when it has free RAM, and can also
reallocate that same memory to processes (thereby avoiding heavy paging)
when required.

This a V.3.2 kernel >cannot< do.  The RAM you set aside for buffer cache is
>gone< from the system for all intents and purposes.  Thus, as an
administrator you get to make that delicate trade between higher speed reads
and writes to the disk, and lower paging rates.  If your load is static this
can be wonderful -- but the real world seldom presents static loads to
systems.  Of course one solution is to just throw hardware at the problem.....

>Someone then pointed out that SysVr4 has those features, and someone else
>pointed out that SCO did too.  Both systems meet the person's requirements,
>based on the original posting.
>
>Or do you care more about buzzwords than features?

No, I care about:

1)	Features which help me make the most of my hardware.
2)	Value for the dollar spent.
3)	Stability.
4)	Adherance to standards without gratuitous incompatibilities.

In this vein I believe that SVR4 systems are both the future and more
capable for the buck spent.  As far as BSD compatibility goes there is
simply no comparison.

SCO has always had reasonable stability.  I'll grant you that.  But their X
server is behind the times, they are based on a V.3.2/V7 base which has its
share of inherent problems and they have had their share of gratuitous
incompatibilities -- which may portend more of them to come -- or maybe not.

I >ran< a V.3.2 system at my office (before joining VideOcart) for a number
of years, and Xenix machines too.  I am quite well aware of the differences
between the choices available.  I still have people who I installed on
V.3.2-based systems -- to a single installation they're looking to go
towards V.4 of one flavor or another.

A buyer weighs all of this and then makes a choice.  Mine, especially when
the economics of the issue are considered, do not lean towards ODT.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022