From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Nov 11 13:54:40 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA04052
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 1995 13:54:40 -0800
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA04037
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 11 Nov 1995 13:54:30 -0800
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA08162; Sat, 11 Nov 1995 14:49:00 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199511112149.OAA08162@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: larry: you might want to add this to lmbench (but i'm not sure)
To: grog@lemis.de
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 14:49:00 -0700 (MST)
Cc: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199511110902.KAA19222@allegro.lemis.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Nov 11, 95 10:02:43 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 729       
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Forgive me if I'm not critical :-)  I just tried it out on two
> 486DX/2-66s, one running BSD/386 1.1 and the other running FreeBSD
> 951004 SNAP.  I think the numbers (for 100000 iterations) speak for
> themselves.
> 
> BSD/386:	10.19 real         0.33 user         9.61 sys
> FreeBSD:	54.25 real         0.82 user        52.67 sys
> 
> People may argue that this is a silly benchmark, but I still think we
> should be interested to know why FreeBSD takes over 5 times as long to
> run this program.

We know why.  Both John Dyson and myself clearly identified the
contributing factors.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.