From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>
To: venom@sns.it, <ahu@ds9a.nl>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:37:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020905153709.29686.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)
From: venom@sns.it
> I usually run byte bench regularly with every new kernel, so I see some
> strange results here.
>
> From your numbers, I would say you are using a PIII 600/900 Mhz (more or
> less). It is not an AMD AThlon or a PIV, since float and double are too
> slow, not it is a K6 because they are too fast.
Yes, I ran the test on a HP Omnibook 600 (PIII@900)
[...]
> seeing this I think you had something running in background using your CPU
> while you where running int tests. if you loock at bm/results/log
> (log.accum if you did some other run recently)
> should find lines like:
>
> Arithmetic Test (type = int)|10.0|lps|227163.1|227158.7|6
>
> that is a little more interesting if you are under load.
No other load, just top and a less of a few files.
[...]
> > >Process Creation Test 9078.6 lps 5422.1 lps
> > Execl Throughput Test 998.0 lps 771.6 lps
>
> this is interesting, but seeing previous results about int and short,
> I am curious about your real load. I am quite curious if with 2.5 you are
> using kernel preemption.
No load, but preemption.
> > File Read (10 seconds) 1571652.0 KBps 1553289.0 KBps
> > File Write (10 seconds) 109237.0 KBps 132002.0 KBps
> > >File Copy (10 seconds) 24329.0 KBps 17994.0 KBps
> > File Read (30 seconds) 1562505.0 KBps 1540682.0 KBps
> > File Write (30 seconds) 113152.0 KBps 137781.0 KBps
> > File Copy (30 seconds) 14334.0 KBps 11460.0 KBps
>
> I saw the save with IDE disks... again, are you using kernel preemption?
ang again, yes ;-)
> > C Compiler Test 470.9 lpm 450.9 lpm
> > Shell scripts (1 concurrent) 980.4 lpm 876.7 lpm
> > Shell scripts (2 concurrent) 544.1 lpm 480.3 lpm
> > Shell scripts (4 concurrent) 287.0 lpm 251.0 lpm
> > Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 147.0 lpm 126.0 lpm
>
> In my tests generally shell scripts are faster with 2.5 kernel.
In any case I'll run again the test with the 4.1 version of Unix Bench.
I'll post the result using as "baseline" the results of the 2.4.19 again 2.5.33 and hopefully 2.4.20-pre5aa1.
Ciao,
Paolo
--
Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org
Powered by Outblaze
next reply other threads:[~2002-09-05 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-05 15:37 Paolo Ciarrocchi [this message]
2002-09-06 10:28 ` side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6 Pavel Machek
2002-09-08 14:09 ` venom
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-08 22:56 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-09 10:46 ` Pavel Machek
2002-09-07 12:21 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-08 19:26 ` Pavel Machek
2002-09-06 7:44 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-04 22:00 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-05 13:48 ` side-by-side " bert hubert
2002-09-05 15:11 ` venom
2002-09-06 3:23 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-06 7:09 ` bert hubert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020905153709.29686.qmail@linuxmail.org \
--to=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--cc=ahu@ds9a.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=venom@sns.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox