[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
File read performance (was LispM Market Share)
- To: "Len%AIP1%TSD%atc.bendix.com%RELAY.CS.NET %ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM"@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
- Subject: File read performance (was LispM Market Share)
- From: sobeck%russian.spa.symbolics.com@RELAY.CS.NET
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:02:00 EST
- Cc: "SLUG%Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM %ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM"@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
- Character-type-mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (NIL :ITALIC NIL) "CPTFONTI")
- Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONTI
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 16:00 CST
From: ai.gooch@MCC.COM (William D. Gooch)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 10:08 EST
4. File read performance is crummy on the Lispms. Since that's done so
often, it leaves the impression that the Lispms are slow machines.
I think you are refering to LMFS performance, right?
Actually, LISPMs typically do1 far0 less file IO than (say) UNIX machines, because
multiple processes all live in the same address space. Resouces have gone into
making UNIX file IO fast because it's central to the modus operendi. Pipes, for
instance, amount to doing disk IO without actually going to disk.