Jerry,
I have experience with both SCOPE and KRONOS dating back to 1969. My initial
experience was with SCOPE at the FSU Computing Center. I was a student at
the time and worked in the Computer Center part time. I remember our
difficulties with SCOPE and performance and much of it had to do with the
limited number of control points and memory management.
With SCOPE you had a limited number of control points (7 at the time I was
using it) which were required to execute a time sharing time slot. Each time
a time-sharing user needed attention it needed to be rolled in and executed.
Usually the time required to roll-in and roll-out a job far exceeded the
actual CPU time required. With such a small number of Control Points
available this was usually a bottle-neck. Another issue was memory. SCOPE
assumed the central memory was locked and immovable unless the PPU allowed
memory movement to take place. Remember each control point contained an
exchange package that contained the beginning address of the program in
memory and its length. So, SCOPE had to wait until a PPU allowed memory
movement.
KRONOS, on the other hand, assumed that memory could be moved unless locked
by a MTR call. This basic difference along with the larger number of control
points in KRONOS (up to 40--if I recall correctly) made control points
readily available for timesharing sessions. The fact that memory was not
locked unless specifically requested made rolling out lower priority batch
jobs much faster than under SCOPE. KRONOS also used the CPU to move memory
which was much faster than SCOPE's PPU memory movement scheme.
After FSU switched to KRONOS we were able to support up to 10 times more
timesharing sessions than we could under SCOPE.
I later went to work for CDC in the KRONOS development group in Arden Hills
and worked there until the summer of 1976.
I hope this helps.
--
Don Foret
Post by Jerry BrodI read in "A Few Good Men From Univac" that the MACE operating system
was chosen as the base for writing a timesharing operating system
(KRONOS) for the 6000 series machines because the current version of
SCOPE was too slow at switching between jobs. Does anyone have a more
detailed explanation of what was the difficulty in adding timesharing
to SCOPE?