Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:4330 comp.os.linux.misc:31104 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!news.indirect.com!wes From: wes@indirect.com (Barnacle Wes) Subject: Re: How fast? [was: ... slugish ...] Message-ID: <D0F827.MAD@indirect.com> Sender: usenet@indirect.com (Darin Wayrynen) Organization: Internet Direct, indirect.com Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 03:22:54 GMT References: <1994Nov28.194617.18912@system9.unisys.com> <3bf6ou$pm7@wup-gate.wup.de> <D0C929.1r2@info.swan.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2.1 [BP] PL2.1] Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Lines: 35 Alan Cox (iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk) wrote: : But many many Linux people run well tuned 386 systems with 4Mb of RAM, and : often very slow CPU's (SX/25 etc). So a 4Mb benchmark is useful, as is an : 8Mb benchmark. The point is that a benchmark on a memory-limited machine will tell you how the systems perform on a memory-limited machine, but may not tell you much about how they perform on a machine with adequate RAM. In oder to guage the performance on a given machine, you need benchmarks on a machine as close as possible to your own configuration. Hypothetical situation: 386sx25, 4 M RAM, IDE disk, OS "F": 432 sandstones 386sx25, 4 M RAM, IDE disk, OS "L": 512 sandstones 386sx25, 4 M RAM, IDE disk, OS "N": 436 sandstones 386dx40, 8 M RAM, IDE disk, OS "F": 812 sandstones 386dx40, 8 M RAM, IDE disk, OS "L": 796 sandstones 386dx40, 8 M RAM, IDE disk, OS "N": 803 sandstones 486dx2/66, 16 M RAM, SCSI disk, OS "F": 1622 sandstones 486dx2/66, 16 M RAM, SCSI disk, OS "L": 1476 sandstones 486dx2/66, 16 M RAM, SCSI disk, OS "N": 1708 sandstones Note: these are completely fictitous figures, so I expect *the administration* will be quoting them in articles next week. For the sake of argument, we see that OS "L" performs best on the slower machine, OS "N" performs best on the high-end machine, and OS "F" performs best on *my* machine, for the (again hypothetical) "sandstone" benchmark. These figures may or may not correspond in anyway to actual systems, or to the "granite" benchmark. ;^) Wes Peters