Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 13:05:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: andreas@klemm.gtn.com (Andreas Klemm) To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Real Time on NT/95? (fwd) Message-ID: <199606011105.NAA00651@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi ! Does someone know, how the value is for FreeBSD-current ? Just my personal interest. Andreas /// ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: Real Time on NT/95? Date: 31 May 1996 06:10:29 GMT Organization: CNS Lines: 25 Message-ID: <4om2gl$47p@lace.colorado.edu> References: <31ADDDFA.1754@mntgte.lockheed.com> Paul Maynard <paul.maynard@mntgte.lockheed.com> wrote: >Greetings: > >I've been told to look into porting an application from QNX to >Windows NT/95. We need to get better than 16 milliseconds >interrupt service response time (i.e., once a hardware interrupt >has been generated, we need to be in our service routine in less >than 16 milliseconds). Can this be done (guaranteed) in an >Intel Win 95/NT environment? 16 milliseconds is a long time, and >in an OS like QNX its trivial. But NT/95???? > >Has anyone done a comparison of interrupt response times between >different OS's such as QNX, LynxOS, and NT/95 on the same Intel >CPU? I'm getting around 0.9 microseconds per interrupt under NT. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Edmond Underwood E-mail: underwoe@Colorado.Edu Bench32 1.10 final beta for Windows NT Bench32 1.07b for Windows 95 http://www.rmii.com/~underwoe/bench32.html.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606011105.NAA00651>