[Info-vax] OS implementation languages

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2023-08-30 14:52, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-08-29, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> 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.
> 
> As you have just been educated by multiple people, this statement is
> nonsense and shows you have no understanding of the tradeoffs involved
> in OS design and how those tradeoffs have changed over time.

Ok. I challenge you to point out what the limit is in VMS here then. Is 
it some check deep down in the code that basically says:

if (thoughput > limit) sleep(sometime);

to make sure we don't get above that limit? Or what is it?

> You have also just quoted a message above that says two very conceptually
> similar designs (Linux and FreeBSD) still manage to have very different
> performance outcomes.

Both systems can push whatever network card/interface to its limit if 
you throw enough resources at it. Just as VMS can. Or RSX for that 
matter. This really should not be hard to understand.

>> 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.
>>
> 
> Why do you say that ? There will always be OS overheads. The only question
> is how large are those overheads ?

Yes. And that was not the question. Maybe you should go back and check 
what question you actually wrote.

>> 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.
>>
> 
> The problem with you Johnny is that you appear to be a very arrogant
> person who assumes that if you don't understand what a person is
> saying, then you assume that person is talking nonsense.

Well. Since you were/are talking nonsense here, what am I do to?

   Johnny