From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 9 05:18:39 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C97216A400; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:18:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [64.129.166.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2E113C46B; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:18:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.42.21] (andersonbox1.centtech.com [192.168.42.21]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l295IMXH057738; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:18:23 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <45F0EE1D.1020201@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:18:21 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070204) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org, anderson@freebsd.org, etc@fluffles.net, ivoras@fer.hr References: <200703080758.l287wb5m019623@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200703080758.l287wb5m019623@lurza.secnetix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.4/2782/Thu Mar 8 21:18:57 2007 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=8.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.6 (2006-10-03) on mh1.centtech.com Cc: Subject: Re: Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:18:39 -0000 On 03/08/07 01:58, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Eric Anderson wrote: > > On 03/07/07 23:13, Fluffles wrote: > > > The low Per Char results would lead me to believe it's a very slow CPU; > > > maybe VIA C3 or some old pentium? Modern systems should get 100MB/s+ in > > > per-char bonnie benchmark, even a Sempron 2600+ 1.6GHz 128KB cache which > > > costs about $39. > > > > Before making speculative claims about slow CPU's and putting the VIA C3 > > in with that pile, please at least refer to what makes you believe that > > it is an issue. Comparing the VIA C3 to 'some old pentium' isn't > > exactly fair or accurate, and inferring it isn't a modern system isn't > > true either. > > I agree that a C3 can be modern (depending on its age). > However, it is indeed rather slow. I happen to have a > C3 1 GHz as my private router, firewall and file server. > For that purpose it is completely sufficient, and I > prefer it over anything like a Sempron for the low power > consumption. > > But its raw processor performance is on the same level > as an old Pentium with about half the clock rate, i.e. > something like a Pentium2 500 MHz in my case (I also > happen to have a Celeron-466 so it's easy to make the > comparison). For that reason I prefer not to compile > anything on it, but rather do that on a faster machine > and then copy things over. My intel Centrino notebook > is at least five times faster than that C3. I'm making no claim they are as fast as a Core 2 Duo, or anything of the like. But a P2-500? That's not realistic for most applications, but maybe for a particular benchmark or two it might be. Just look on the net for the countless benchmarks, and you'll see it usually is about in line with the same age and MHz Celeron processor. Eric