[Info-vax] OS implementation languages

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2023-08-29 22:27, bill wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 3:18 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2023-08-29 19:25, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2023-08-29, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell at munted.eu> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> Very much FreeBSD here for some years, after decades first with
>>>>>> dec,
>>>>>> then Sun. Forms the basic of at least some proprietary offerings,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> well as millions of embedded devices. Linux is still a unix,
>>>>>> and runs the majority of web sites of the world, so if anything,
>>>>>> unix has won the os wars...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, very much so. (And I can't believe Arne thinks the *BSDs have no
>>>>> serious users... :-) ).
>>>>
>>>> Netflix picked FreeBSD as it could chuck out data at 400GB/s. Linux was
>>>> not even close.
>>>
>>> 10 years from now (assuming the economy hasn't collapsed by then :-) ):
>>>
>>> 400GB/s ??? Is that all ??? Amateurs!!! :-)
>>
>> Well. I have this friend of mine, who installed 40 Gb/s at his moms 
>> place in 2007...
>>
>>> On a more serious note, I wonder what the maximum rate VMS is capable
>>> of emitting data at if it was using the fastest network hardware
>>> available.
>>
>> What a weird question. VMS in itself don't have any limits. It's all 
>> always just about the hardware.
> 
> Not really.  VMS has always been notoriously slow with I/O and I assume
> that's what Simon was hinting at.

So? It just means that other systems might achieve higher rate of I/O 
throughput than VMS on a specific piece of hardware. Nothing prevents me 
from throwing faster hardware on the problem until I saturate the 
network, no matter which OS I'm using.

>> Some software might be able to squeeze more out of the same hardware, 
>> but just spin up faster hardware, and you'll get higher throughput. 
>> But any system will basically just be limited by the speed of the 
>> network hardware, if that item is fixed. You can't go above that. But 
>> there are no reasons why you wouldn't be able to get to that point.
> 
> You are forgetting the overhead of the drivers and any underlying O/S
> code that has to be called to do it.

Irrelevant. That just means I need to throw some more hardware on the 
problem. Not that the OS somehow prevents me from achieving a higher 
throughput.

>> These are the kind of questions that sometimes make me wonder if you 
>> know anything at all about computers. But then you do some other posts 
>> which clearly demonstrate that you do understand some stuff.
> 
> I think it was just a subtle poke in the ribs for VMS.

I think it was a display of complete ignorance on behalf of Simon. 
Possibly just not thinking before writing. Who knows...?

   Johnny