From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:41:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([IPv6:::ffff:212.227.126.187]:56257 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:40:59 +0100 Received: from p54A2AB5C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.162.171.92] (helo=[192.168.178.44]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML25U-1DsHH0140Y-0005o4; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:41:54 +0200 Message-ID: <42D39096.7010500@cantastic.de> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:42:46 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ralf_R=F6sch?= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Gonzalez CC: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking RM9000 References: <20050708091711Z8226352-3678+1954@linux-mips.org> <20050708120238.GA2816@linux-mips.org> <1120825549.28569.949.camel@euskadi.packetvision> <20050708130131.GC2816@linux-mips.org> <1120833749.28569.965.camel@euskadi.packetvision> <20050710231419.GA28518@linux-mips.org> <1121096632.28569.1107.camel@euskadi.packetvision> In-Reply-To: <1121096632.28569.1107.camel@euskadi.packetvision> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:fe0074b40cafaf3a4e4a4699a3836908 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 8457 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: linux@cantastic.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips >As before, I'd appreciate some other results from modern systems to >compare with. > > > Alex, below you can find our LMBENCH 3.0-a4 test results. Our machine is a Toshiba TX4937 based system (in the hope "modern enough") running with 333MHz CPU-Clock and 133 MHz SDRAM-Clock (64bit). The bench was run on the Debian based mipsel-distribution. I'm surprised about the big difference in test results compared to your RM9000 system. I would expect that your system should be much faster and I think there must be a blocking part (hardware, software) in your system. Regards Ralf (Roesch) L M B E N C H 3 . 0 S U M M A R Y ------------------------------------ (Alpha software, do not distribute) Basic system parameters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Host OS Description Mhz tlb cache mem scal pages line par load bytes --------- ------------- ----------------------- ---- ----- ----- ------ ---- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 mipsel-linux-gnu 326 4 32 1.0700 1 Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Host OS Mhz null null open slct sig sig fork exec sh call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 326 0.41 1.22 8.37 9.96 78.1 1.85 7.77 1437 8018 36.K Basic integer operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS intgr intgr intgr intgr intgr bit add mul div mod --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 3.0600 0.0500 18.3 122.4 124.8 Basic float operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better ----------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS float float float float add mul div bogo --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 15.6 15.1 64.9 126.7 Basic double operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------ Host OS double double double double add mul div bogo --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 24.7 24.2 106.5 217.8 Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 1.1100 29.8 28.4 71.2 18.6 70.2 24.5 *Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better --------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn --------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 1.110 16.4 35.3 73.8 205.7 146.8 313.1 560. File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page 100fd Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault selct --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ------- ----- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 252.1 349.2 753.6 536.2 69.0K 1.830 5.18150 44.3 *Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ----- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 41.0 42.0 36.5 55.7 166.1 89.8 89.0 166. 153.4 Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Rand mem Guesses --------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- -------- ------- debian-mi Linux 2.6.12 326 6.3470 125.0 127.1 302.4 No L2 cache?