Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:1224 comp.os.linux:56189 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac From: iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: FYI.. benchmarks on linux and 386bsd Message-ID: <1993Oct13.132032.22762@swan.pyr> Organization: Swansea University College References: <CEMA3n.DuE@rex.uokhsc.edu> <1993Oct9.191335.3202@Belvedere%hip-hop.suvl.ca.us> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 13:20:32 GMT Lines: 19 In article <1993Oct9.191335.3202@Belvedere%hip-hop.suvl.ca.us> root@Belvedere%hip-hop.suvl.ca.us (David E. Fox) writes: >What's wrong with the Byte Unix benchmark suite? Lots. I even mailed byte a list of comments they didnt even bother acknowledging For example Linux is 12 times faster than SCO on the multiple shells test. When you put the gnu sort and other utils onto SCO then Linux is 1.3 times faster. Linux also does ridiculously well in the pipe test (faster than a big HP - nice pipe code Linus). The result of this is the benchmark is totally thrown when comparing Linux to att/v7 based systems. In fact it claimed my 386DX40 was almost comparable to a compaq 486/33 with coprocessor running SCO. Now Linux is good yes but that bench mark is pure bull. > >One thing I'd like to point out that in my particular experience, >floating-point sans coprocessor on 386BSD was miserably slow in >comparison to Linux. I tried a whetstone benchmark and it took over This is odd. They use the same coprocessor emulator. Alan iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk