[TUHS] UVM VM system

Clem Cole clemc at ccc.com
Sun Sep 2 05:16:42 AEST 2018

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 2:51 PM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:

> So I just read this
> https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/usenix99/full_papers/cranor/cranor.pdf

I remember that presentsation, it was exciting and very cool ;-)

> and it looks encouraging.  Apparently NetBSD is using it.

Hmm - integrated/used it at one time ... but ... I'm not sure of that is
still true of it it even really made it out.  That was all happening when I
was still hacking on Alphas (which was a long time ago).   We'd need the
active NetBSD folks to chime in on curent state.

>   Does anyone
> know if they are happy with it?
At the time (and I'm doing this by memory) the buffer cache stuff needed a
rewrite which I thought FreeBSD did/was doing at the time.
In those days, FreeBSD was within epislon on of Tru64 on Alpha performance
and NetBSD had a ways to go.  At the time, I gave a couple of Alphas to
somebody in the UK (I've forgotten whom); who was going to redo it.

> Has FreeBSD considered this?
Last I knew, no.  I was under the impression, the work FreeBSD did
rewriting the Mach stuff paid off for them at the time.  I have FreeBSD,
OpenBSD and Linux (and Mac OSx) all running on my systems here.   But the
problem is that the HW is all over the map in termns of release date, so
I'm not sure which is faster at this point.   The *BSD systems are the
easiest to admin and clean/simplest (which is why they only systems I have
exposed is an OpenBSD box).  But they have uses ;-)

> Has anyone benchmarked FreeBSD against NetBSD to see which is faster
> for VM stuff?

My data was from those days, and FreeBSD was winning, but thats a >>long<<
time ago.  Lots of bits have been types into to the kernel of both systems,
so you tell me,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20180901/f2b097f2/attachment.html>

More information about the TUHS mailing list