Reini Urban wrote:
> Merlin Moncure schrieb:
> > A good benchmark of our application performance is the time it takes
> > read the entire bill of materials for a product.  This is a
> > read of about 2500 records in the typical case (2408 in the test
> I always knew that COBOL ultimativly looses, but it's always
> to get confirmation from time to time :)

Heh.  It's important to make the distinction between COBOL, which is
just a language, and ISAM, which is a data delivery system.  You could,
for example, pair COBOL with SQL with good results, (in fact, we plan
to).   But yes, many legacy COBOL apps were written with assumptions
about the system architecture that are no longer valid.

> Where did you get the win32 "avg cpu load" number from? AFAIK there's
> getloadavg() for windows. At least I tried hard to find one, because I
> want to add a comparable figure to cygwin core. emacs, coreutils, make
> and others would need desperately need it, not to speak of servers and
> real-time apps.

I just eyeballed it :-).  So consider the load averages anecdotal,
although they are quite stable.  However it is quite striking that with
the same application code the win32 load average was 2-3 times higher.

I also left out the dual processor results, because I did not have time
to test them on linux.  However, sadly the 2nd processor adds very
little extras horsepower to the server.  I'm hoping linux will be


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to