From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 14 12:20:28 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D81F16A49E
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:20:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EEE43D76
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:20:19 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32])
	by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp
	id 1GNqCY-000BFK-CP; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:20:18 +0300
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2
To: Pieter de Goeje <pieter@degoeje.nl>
In-reply-to: <200609141401.14582.pieter@degoeje.nl> 
References: <E1GNOLq-000DC2-1Q@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<200609141401.14582.pieter@degoeje.nl>
Comments: In-reply-to Pieter de Goeje <pieter@degoeje.nl>
	message dated "Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:01:14 +0200."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:20:18 +0300
From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-ID: <E1GNqCY-000BFK-CP@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: numbers don't lie ... 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:20:28 -0000

> On Wednesday 13 September 2006 08:36, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > Im testing these 2 boxes, Sun X4100 and Dell-2950, and:
> >
> > 	SUN X4100:	Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280 (2393.19-MHz K8-class
> > CPU) one 70g sata disk
> > 	DELL 2950:	Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz (3192.98-MHz K8-class CPU)
> > 			4 sata disks + raid0
> >
> > they both run identical 6.1-STABLE.
> >
> > my 'cpu benchmark' shows the amd being much better than the intel.
> > but, doing a make buildworld give interesting results:
> >
> > dell-2950 : make -j16 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 24m17.41s real
> > 1h3m3.26s user 17m15.07s sys
> > dell-2950 : make -j8 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 24m8.28s real
> > 1h2m59.38s user 16m16.20s sys
> >
> > sunfire : make -j16 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 24m21.38s real 49m6.68s
> > user 14m22.64s sys
> > sunfire : make -j8 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 23m47.69s real 48m53.58s
> > user 13m44.81s sys
> >
> > which probably says something about my 'cpu benchmark' :-(
> > but why is the user time so much different between the boxes?
> 
> Maybe the sunfire's CPU is faster, but has to wait on the harddisk. The 
> buildworld 'benchmark' is probably for a large part I/O bound.

nah, i have run the makefile with serveral different disks, ie
	raid0, raid5, FC, iSCSI, SAS,
and the numbers/times don't change (or not significantly).

and in any case, it's the dell that has the fastest disks, but the user time
is the largest.