From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:19:36 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 163 ************************************************** Wednesday 13 March 2002 Number 163 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 OS/2 v. Linux performance : John Poltorak 2 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Peter Jespersen" 3 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : John Poltorak 4 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : John Poltorak 5 Re: Autoconf 2.52h : Henry Sobotka 6 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : John Poltorak 7 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Holger Veit 8 Procmail : John Poltorak 9 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Peter Jespersen" 10 Re: Autoconf 2.52h : John Poltorak 11 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Stephen Amadei 12 Re: Autoconf 2.52h : John Poltorak 13 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Sergey I. Yevtushenko" 14 Re: Procmail : John Poltorak 15 PINE mailbox format : John Poltorak 16 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Jack Troughton 17 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Stephen Amadei 18 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Jack Troughton 19 Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance : Brian Havard" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:01:37 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: OS/2 v. Linux performance Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:34:21 +0100 (CET) From: "Peter Jespersen" Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:01:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > >Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for >apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? Any comparisons should be done with Apache 2.0, otherwise I'm afaid that OS/2 would have too big an disadvantage! Perhaps that is why no large scale comparisons has been made! Live long and prosper... _________________________________________________________________ Peter Jespersen, Member of Team OS/2 Denmark flywheel at illogical.dk http://www.illogical.dk Pro is to con as progress is to Congress. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:24:45 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Tue, Apr 20, 2038 at 09:58:08PM +0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:01:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for > >apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? > > ;) > > first of all : OS/2 tcp/ip stack must be slower then Linux stack, because of > OS/2 modularity Are there any benchtests to prove this? I have heard that the gcc version of Mozilla is faster than the VAC version. > second: apache/emx must be slower because of : 1. emx layer 2. slow fork > implementation. Will libemx improve this sitution? > also current emx limited to 2048 sockets max. Do many people suffer from this restriction? Will it disappear in time? > for now there are : > apache from ibm, threaded and compiled with VAC; Apache v2 is also threaded, but uses EMX AFAIK, but is claimed to be much faster than v1. Is it possible to compare this version against IBM's? > web/2 tiny native os/2 threaded webserver; > squid/VAC - not complited yet, but almost working. > they must be much better then emx ports. I thought that VAC was not very usable for Building Open Source Software... > --- > madded. [Red Hot Chili Hackers] > -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:55:30 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 11:41:05PM +1000, Brian Havard wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:24:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >On Tue, Apr 20, 2038 at 09:58:08PM +0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: > [...] > >> for now there are : > >> apache from ibm, threaded and compiled with VAC; > > > >Apache v2 is also threaded, but uses EMX AFAIK, but is claimed to be much > >faster than v1. Is it possible to compare this version against IBM's? > > Apache v2 is compiled with EMX gcc but calls OS/2 API's directly for all > file & network I/O so no EMX restrictions or performance penalties apply. How does it compare with the VAC version and with Unix builds? I guess the techniques you are using would also enhance performance of SQUID, BIND etc... > -- > ______________________________________________________________________________ > | Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! | > | brianh at kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:08:08 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.52h John Poltorak wrote: > > Can you upload something to ftp://uixos2.org/incoming ? > > I'd prefer the stable one, ie. 5.6.1. When I have time tonight. > Is 5.7.2 likely to be declared the stable version soon? 5.7.3 was released about a week ago. It's the final development release before the next stable version, 5.8.0, due in April or May. Perl now uses odd=development, even=stable minor-version numbering, i.e. 5.7.3->5.9.x->5.11.x, 5.6.1->5.8.0->5.10.x. h~ **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:14:17 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 02:58:55PM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:24:45PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2038 at 09:58:08PM +0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: > > > also current emx limited to 2048 sockets max. > > > > Do many people suffer from this restriction? > > > > Will it disappear in time? > > It is gone already in TCP/IP 4.3, but to take advantage of this, you have to > modify EMX to use the newer 32 bit TCPIP32.DLL. How? > Holger > > -- > Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: > holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) > -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:58:55 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:24:45PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2038 at 09:58:08PM +0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:01:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for > > >apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? > > > > ;) > > > > first of all : OS/2 tcp/ip stack must be slower then Linux stack, because of > > OS/2 modularity > > Are there any benchtests to prove this? I have heard that the gcc version > of Mozilla is faster than the VAC version. Quality of compiled code is not really significant in such large programs. The real bottleneck is the OS itself, and its filesystem throughput, program loading performance and paging behaviour. OS/2 still carries a lot of old code for compatibility which slows down system, compared to a rather new and improved kernel of Linux. > > second: apache/emx must be slower because of : 1. emx layer 2. slow fork > > implementation. > > Will libemx improve this sitution? The paths to the system should be shorter, but the real improvement, as already mentioned will be achieveable through native threading rather than emulated fork. > > also current emx limited to 2048 sockets max. > > Do many people suffer from this restriction? > > Will it disappear in time? It is gone already in TCP/IP 4.3, but to take advantage of this, you have to modify EMX to use the newer 32 bit TCPIP32.DLL. Holger -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:47:04 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Procmail There was a port of Procmail a couple of years ago which is/was available here:- ftp://happy.carrier.kiev.ua/pub/os2/ I can't reach this site any more - maybe it has disappeared, and I haven't heard from the porter for a long time. This port was based on Procmail v3.11pre7 and I 'd like to get something more recent if possible. Has anyone else ported Procmail? -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:52:38 +0100 (CET) From: "Peter Jespersen" Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:24:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Tue, Apr 20, 2038 at 09:58:08PM +0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:01:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for >> >apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? >> >> ;) >> >> first of all : OS/2 tcp/ip stack must be slower then Linux stack, because of >> OS/2 modularity > >Are there any benchtests to prove this? I have heard that the gcc version >of Mozilla is faster than the VAC version. AFAIK the TCP/IP is embedded in the kernel, the TCP/IP is OS/2 is glued on afterwards....it would be a poor implementation if the new multithreaded TCP/IP stack of Linux is not just a tad faster! Live long and prosper... _________________________________________________________________ Peter Jespersen, Member of Team OS/2 Denmark flywheel at illogical.dk http://www.illogical.dk honoris gratia (For the sake of honourary) **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:14:45 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.52h On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:17:21PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Should I be able to generate a > > configure script from a configure.in containing only? :- > > > > AC_PROG_AWK > > > > I get some error msg about m4_defn - undefined macro... > > Starting with AC_INIT will get rid of that, i.e. you need: > > AC_INIT > AC_PROG_AWK > > > Is it possible to get a copy of your config.sh with some notes explaining > > changes to the defaults? > > Sure, if you tell me which one(s) you want (5.6.1 and/or 5.7.2) and > where to put it as there's no point flogging everyone on the list with > the attachment(s). Can you upload something to ftp://uixos2.org/incoming ? I'd prefer the stable one, ie. 5.6.1. Is 5.7.2 likely to be declared the stable version soon? > Unfortunately, I don't have time to annotate them but recall changing > the compilation/linkage flags (for pgcc, more optimization, warnings > full-blast), un-undefining functions I know to be available in EMX libc, > ditto for any utilities/programs that I have installed but found set to > empty strings, turning on 64-bit-math-via-long-long support, and (moreso > with 5.7.2) playing around with the module list and other options (all > of which are amply documented in Config.PM). They may be documented, but their signifcance can easily be lost on someone not familiar with them. > h~ -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:18:02 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Amadei Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for > apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? I have never tested them, but they "feel" about the same... however, I'm sure this would change under load. The reason I write, however, is that I've found that Warp's performance slowly wanes over time/usage. I think this problem needs to be addressed. ----Steve Stephen Amadei Dandy.NET! CTO Atlantic City, NJ **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:25:52 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.52h On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 04:27:33PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > > a discrete Perl build kit which will work in isolation from the normal > > UnixOS/2 environment... > > I think that would be overkill. Perl's build machinery is unique, but > the tools it uses are basically the normal ones. Sure, but all it needs is a slight quirk in a single utility such as the wrong version of TR or something being in a non-standard location, even if it is on the path, and Perl fails to build. It's exasperating when this happens if you have never built Perl previously and it's very difficult to debug. > > > Are you able to get problems resolved? > > > > There seem to be two outstanding problems at the moment:- > > 2. One of the tests does not work. This appears to be REXX related and is > > probably specifically devised for OS/2. > > Similarly, the REXX extension is not something I use. If you really want > it fixed, report the test failure to the module's author. I reported it to perlbug almost a week ago, but heard nothing. > h~ -- John **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:30:38 +0200 (EET) From: "Sergey I. Yevtushenko" Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:52:38 +0100 (CET), Peter Jespersen wrote: >>> first of all : OS/2 tcp/ip stack must be slower then Linux stack, because of >>> OS/2 modularity >> >>Are there any benchtests to prove this? I have heard that the gcc version >>of Mozilla is faster than the VAC version. > >AFAIK the TCP/IP is embedded in the kernel, the TCP/IP is OS/2 is glued on afterwards.... In fact this does not make any difference. >it would be a poor implementation >if the new multithreaded TCP/IP stack of Linux is not just a tad faster! I think there should be no significant difference in network performance between OS/2 and Linux unless there are serious flaws in the implementation. Regards, Sergey. *-------------------------------------- ES at Home **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:18:48 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Procmail On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:58:34AM +1100, IanM wrote: > Hi John > > >There was a port of Procmail a couple of years ago which is/was available > >here:- > > Not sure of the version but there is on on unixos2 in the > n1 directory. That's the same version. > Cheers > IanM > http://www.os2site.com/ > -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:51:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: PINE mailbox format I'm trying to use the OS/2 port of PINE but can't find a way for it to read incoming mail, at least not in the format I would like it to... In the docs, there is mention of support for several different folder formats including Unix, MTX, MBX, and Tenex although this is not necessarily tested on OS/2. Where are these formats defined and where can I see an example? The format in my inbox is a single directory per user name with one file per msg. Also I can't get PINE to retrieve mail from a pop server. I get a error msg saying 'invalid remote specification' although fetchmail does work. -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:53:08 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance Stephen Amadei wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > >>Has anyone ever done any performance comparison between OS/2 and Linux for >>apps such as Apache or Squid, for instance, on the same hardware? >> > > I have never tested them, but they "feel" about the same... however, I'm > sure this would change under load. The reason I write, however, is that > I've found that Warp's performance slowly wanes over time/usage. I think > this problem needs to be addressed. Usually this is due to your ini files getting bloated. Try getting wptools and running checkini... it can cut out a lot of the crap that should get cleaned up by the system, but doesn't. Alternatively, XWorkPlace also has a feature to do this... however, if you want to try XWP, make sure you get 0.9.14, and not the latest! The last two versions are pretty buggy... Ulrich et. al. are working on getting a debugged 0.9.18 out the door. Regards, Jack -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org * * Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:40:21 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Amadei Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Jack Troughton wrote: > Usually this is due to your ini files getting bloated. Try getting > wptools and running checkini... it can cut out a lot of the crap that > should get cleaned up by the system, but doesn't. Alternatively, > XWorkPlace also has a feature to do this... however, if you want to try > XWP, make sure you get 0.9.14, and not the latest! The last two versions > are pretty buggy... Ulrich et. al. are working on getting a debugged > 0.9.18 out the door. Well, I do checkini most of my systems from time to time... but I'm having a tough time seeing how the INIs would influence how responsive Apache is when accessed from other machines. The system is overdue, so I'll checkini it soon. ----Steve Stephen Amadei Dandy.NET! CTO Atlantic City, NJ **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:15:37 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance Stephen Amadei wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Jack Troughton wrote: > > >>Usually this is due to your ini files getting bloated. Try getting >>wptools and running checkini... it can cut out a lot of the crap that >>should get cleaned up by the system, but doesn't. Alternatively, >>XWorkPlace also has a feature to do this... however, if you want to try >>XWP, make sure you get 0.9.14, and not the latest! The last two versions >>are pretty buggy... Ulrich et. al. are working on getting a debugged >>0.9.18 out the door. > > Well, I do checkini most of my systems from time to time... but > I'm having a tough time seeing how the INIs would influence how responsive > Apache is when accessed from other machines. Hmmm, I see what you mean... neither can I. Only thing I can say is that I use web/2 and I don't see that problem... Only other thing I can think of is that one has to be careful sometimes to be sure to drop variables properly when you have a script that will be executed a zillion times... esp. in object rexx; I think it has to do with the .environment object's persistence from one session to the next. > The system is overdue, so I'll checkini it soon. Well, it can't hurt, anyway;) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org * * Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:41:05 +1000 (EST) From: "Brian Havard" Subject: Re: OS/2 v. Linux performance On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:24:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Tue, Apr 20, 2038 at 09:58:08PM +0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: [...] >> for now there are : >> apache from ibm, threaded and compiled with VAC; > >Apache v2 is also threaded, but uses EMX AFAIK, but is claimed to be much >faster than v1. Is it possible to compare this version against IBM's? Apache v2 is compiled with EMX gcc but calls OS/2 API's directly for all file & network I/O so no EMX restrictions or performance penalties apply. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! | | brianh at kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------