Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:29:15 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU Message-ID: <20060112112915.A16360@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <20060112141925.91320.qmail@web33307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>; from danial_thom@yahoo.com on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:19:25AM -0800 References: <20060111191224.A93090@cons.org> <20060112141925.91320.qmail@web33307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939 > > socket systems against dual > > 940 socket systems here: > > > http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html > > Just a question about your benches, any reason > you just don't ship files to /dev/null? That was > always the standard in unix to get the disk out > of it. I am not sure what specific test you are referring to, but in general I avoid using /dev/null as a sink like the plague. Speed on /dev/null varies drastically between OSes, and sometimes between kernel versions (e.g. SMP and non-SMP kernel). In combination with other load it becomes unpredictable. Any benchmark doing dd of=/dev/null is bogus IMHO. My cstream utility has a build-in disgard option which avoids this problem. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060112112915.A16360>