Re: Results: pre6 vs pre6+zlatko's_patch vs pre5 vs arcavm13

Steve Bergman
1999-01-10T00:31:58Z

Steve Bergman wrote:

I ran the "image test" (loading 116 jpg images simultaneously) on the latest
patches and got these results in 128MB (I end up with ~ 160MB in swap):

pre6+zlatko's_patch 2:35
pre6 2:27
pre5 1:58
arcavm13 9:13

Arcavm13 (the star performer in the low memory test) is having problems here.
Pre5, which I performed about the same as the others in the my low memory test
and which I ignored in my even lower 12MB test looks quite good here. Based on
it's good performance here, I decided to run the 12MB kernel compile test on it,
as well. (See what happens when I try to cut corners...)

In 12MB:

pre6+zlatko_patch 22:14 383206 204482 57823
pre6 20:54 352934 191210 48678
pre5 19:35 334680 183732 93427
arcavm13 19:45 344452 180243 38977

Pre5 is looking good. Based upon the tests that I have run, anyway. I agree
with the person who expressed a distrust of benchmarks. But numbers are
necessary for tuning. "Feels faster" is just not a very trustworthy thing. So
I also agree with one of the responses:

"Try out your favorite apps and time some portion of them and post any
interesting numbers." (paraphrased)

Benchmarks are not the problem. The problem is the lack of comprehensiveness,
or the tunnel-vision if you prefer, that benchmarks can lead one into. Find a
way to quantify the things that you do everyday and post the results.

-Thanks
-Steve