Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Jun 1998 03:43:54 +0300 (EEST) | From | Samuli Kaski <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |