Re: Tarball of ported libmicro 0.3 available for testing...

From: Suleiman Souhlal (ssouhlal_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 08/08/05

  • Next message: Tulio Guimarães da Silva: "[Fwd: Re: [RFC] Bumping ufs.dirhash_maxmem to a larger value?]" 
    Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:55:05 +0200
To: Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net>

    Hello,

    On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:01 AM, Xin LI wrote:

    > 在 2005-08-08一的 03:15 +0200，Suleiman Souhlal写é“：
    >
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 3:25 PM, gnn@freebsd.org wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I plan to make a port of this this weekend, but would like some
    >>> feedback on this set of benchmarks. If they're useful I think we
    >>> should make them part of a nightly benchmarking strategy.
    >>>
    >>
    >> In case you're interested, I ran it on a dual p4 xeon (without
    >> HyperThreading) from the netperf cluster, to compare the performance
    >> of RELENG_5, RELENG_6 and HEAD.
    >> You can find the results at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/
    >> stuff/
    >> compare_tiger-3.html .
    >> It shows that RELENG_6 and HEAD are (in these tests) almost never
    >> slower than RELENG_5, and often more than 20% faster.
    >>
    >
    > Great work! BTW. Is there any clue about why pthread_128 looks
    > slower
    > than RELENG_5 and then recovered in HEAD?

    I'm not sure, but I ran the benchmark on the same kernel several
    times (after rebooting), and as gnn noticed, it seems like there is a
    high variance for the tests that have 128k size things. Something
    must be going on at those sizes.
    The results are at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/stuff/
    compare_HEAD.html 

    --
Suleiman Souhlal     | ssouhlal@vt.edu
The FreeBSD Project  | ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Tulio Guimarães da Silva: "[Fwd: Re: [RFC] Bumping ufs.dirhash_maxmem to a larger value?]"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Maltesers (was troll (was spam))
      ... as they don't have the nerve to speak up in here, ... emails). ... Anybody got a clue who this Rick is BTW? ...
      (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
    • Re: MId Atlantic SERIOUS QUESTION
      ... VERBATIM (which btw is how you spell that), ... YOUR "STUDENTS" LOOK OLD ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE TRUTH. ... CLUE" THAT THEY ARE DOING WORK STOLEN FROM ST. PAT'S SHOW IT'S BECAUSE ... "FUATES" IT MAKES IT OK TO TAKE ANOTHER GUARD'S ENTIRE ENDING RIGHT OFF ...
      (rec.arts.marching.colorguard)
    • Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
      ... > I am asking how a machine language BRANCH instruction (which has a SINGLE ... We don't really have general "compare" instructions as you seem to describe ... I can certainly envision "regular" COBOL logic that does a simple VALC ... necessarily be presumed *slower* than the case in which the comparison was ...
      (comp.lang.cobol)
    • Re: Old pc faster than recent
      ... slower than an old 7 years old desktop... ... That reminds me: At which ... you want do compare the bogomips... ... disabling more daemons do not enhance the performance. ...
      (Ubuntu)
    • Re: Yet another CHL moron
      ... Ghost) sputtered: ... Franky, ... You don't have a clue even after using the dictionary. ... BTW, I'm using a concept, not a word - "false bifurcation". ...
      (talk.politics.guns)