From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com (mta05ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.137]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC99B482C for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:06:35 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:06:26 +1100 From: Peter Lavender To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Peter Lavender , parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] performance? Message-ID: <20020327180626.C28130@piglet> Reply-To: plaven@bigpond.net.au References: <20020326224358.B28171@piglet> <20020326154444.D26865@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020326154444.D26865@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>; from willy@debian.org on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 03:44:44PM +0000 Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: * Matthew Wilcox (willy@debian.org) wrote: > > It wasn't until I compiled it on my p90 with 48 meg ram running a a > > zillion services and daemons that I noticed just how slow the 715 is. > > Running the program proved this even further. > > Would you mind posting some numbers? > > Also, let's try to figure out what other variables are a factor. Can you > compare gcc-3.0 on your x86 to the current compiler? The p90 system is an old stock install of redhat 6.0 with very little done to the kernel.. it was recompiled with certain drivers built into the kernel but that's about it. [pete@piglet brad]$ g++ --version egcs-2.91.66 The program is fairly simple in what it does. I really don't want to install gcc-3.0 on this system as it really is a stable workhorse and I'd rather not break. But even running time is somewhat of a difference... lets see: This is a very simple shell script that outputs date at start and finish of the program running.. I'm no guru really.. :) Run on HPPA 715/64 Wed Mar 27 18:02:20 EST 2002 Wed Mar 27 18:02:50 EST 2002 Run on P90 Wed Mar 27 18:00:32 EST 2002 Wed Mar 27 18:00:39 EST 2002 Just quickly you can see that it took 7 secs to do the same thing on the p90 and 30 seconds on the hppa box. The p90 runs alot of daemons, substantially more than the hppa box.. but this is a surprise.. I have some thoughts about the compiling, but none what so ever about the general difference between the arches... I just thought it was of interest as I thought the hppa box was of similar processing capability to the p90. Regards, Pete. -- Due to a lack of imagination, this signature will remain under construction indefinately.