Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 30 May 1996 09:53:53 -0400 (EDT) | From | David C Niemi <> | Subject | Re: 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 > > ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/sources/test-suites/benchmark.tar.Z ... > 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:
ftp://wauug.erols.com/pub/bench/unixbench-4.0-DELTA.tgz
Niemi@wauug.erols.com 703-810-5538 Reston, Virginia, USA ------ Money talks, but it is wrong half of the time. -----
|  |