[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Benchmark comparisons - a summary of the last year
On Thu, 30 May 1996, Carlo E. Prelz wrote:
> Q: Where can I find the benchmark software?
> A: I am using the unix benchmark set that was put together by Byte
> magazine at the time it was not terminally microsoft-biased. You can
> find the software at
> Q: The disk IO results are a bit strange.
> A: I know. Some results are missing altogether for all releases up to
> 1.3.13: at that time I discovered a bug in the software that meant
> that the past results were rubbish.
> There was also a period where the IO results were varying between two
> platform levels. This behavior ended at release 1.3.53, when the
> performances grew to a higher level. Here is the graph for File Copy
> (30 seconds):

There are some additional problems with the original disk I/O benchmarks,
beyond the truly egregious flaw which you already fixed:
- No "partial credit" is given for partly read or written blocks.
This results in greater variance and "plateaus" like you saw.

- The sample size is just right to fit in buffer cache on some
machines and to not fit on others

- Sync() is not called very effectively between calls.

I attempted to address all these issues. I also did major revisious to
the scoring algorithm and rebaselined it at 10.0 for a SPARCstation 20/61
running Solaris 2.3 with a SPARC Storage Array (yes, many PCs running
Linux are still a lot faster than the baseline).

Anyway, if anyone is interested in my "fixed" version, please take a look
at: 703-810-5538 Reston, Virginia, USA
------ Money talks, but it is wrong half of the time. -----

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.047 / U:0.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site