lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: bonnie comparisons of 2.0.34 and 2.1.105
    On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Andrew J. Anderson wrote:

    > I thought the list would be interested in this comparison of bonnie results:
    >
    > -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
    > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
    > Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
    > 2.0.34 500 1117 16.2 1111 5.8 607 31.2 1426 92.7 1605 95.6 17.9 0.5
    > 2.1.105 500 2208 21.8 2230 6.9 1214 24.3 3425 83.9 4280 82.1 26.8 0.7

    I think there is more to it. I get decreasing (avg ~1-20%) bonnie
    performance with 2.1.105 compaired to 2.0.3x but still 2.1.105 is
    lightyears :) faster than 2.0 just in about anything - even the bare eye
    can see it.

    So basically what I wanted to say is: it is easy to do benchmarks but it
    is quite tricky to interpret their results correctly.

    Of course the results above would make perfect sense if there had been a
    Adaptec driver update that would count for a 100% increase in
    performance; which hasn't been the case for my ncr53c875.

    --
    Samuli Kaski, samkaski@cs.helsinki.fi
    Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Finland.



    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.023 / U:30.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site