From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 18 11:05:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA00849 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fyeung5 (netific.vip.best.com [205.149.182.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00841 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fyeung8.netific.com (fyeung8 [204.238.125.8]) by fyeung5 (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA11633 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:55:42 -0700 Received: by fyeung8.netific.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA16829; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:55:51 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:55:51 -0700 From: fyeung@fyeung8.netific.com (Francis Yeung) Message-Id: <9706181755.AA16829@fyeung8.netific.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RiscBSD speed X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Greetings, See below. FYI. Francis ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From root@fyeung25.netific.com Tue Jun 17 23:52 PDT 1997 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:32:01 +0100 From: Peter Teichmann To: port-arm32@NetBSD.ORG Subject: RiscBSD speed X-Posting-Agent: RISC OS Newsbase 0.59 Delivered-To: port-arm32@NetBSD.ORG Hi, some days ago I compiled lmbench for RiscBSD and got the following results. I added some other computers for comparison: L M B E N C H 1 . 0 S U M M A R Y ------------------------------------ Processor, Processes - times in microseconds -------------------------------------------- Host OS Mhz Null Null Simple /bin/sh Mmap 2-proc 8-proc Syscall Process Process Process lat ctxsw ctxsw --------- ------------- ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- ------ ------ Strongarm NetBSD 1.2D 215 5 38K 59K 279K 1763 855 1276 Arm610/33 NetBSD 1.2D 31 80 25K 38K 166K 843 251 390 i586 FreeBSD 2.1-S 100 7 3K 13K 21K 173 29 35 i586 Linux 1.2.13 100 3 3K 24K 73K 84 66 83 pa-risc HP-UX A.09.01 98 13 3K 10K 20K 97 29 30 sgi IRIX5.3 5.3 198 11 3K 8K 19K 260 40 38 alpha OSF1 V3.2 189 15 5K 15K 89K 261 40 46 *Local* Communication latencies in microseconds ----------------------------------------------- Host OS Pipe UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ UDP TCP --------- ------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Strongarm NetBSD 1.2D 1839 13888 15810 13986 14424 Arm610/33 NetBSD 1.2D 1669 14104 17791 14783 15887 i586 FreeBSD 2.1-S 115 249 408 297 510 i586 Linux 1.2.13 140 -1 806 -1 1249 pa-risc HP-UX A.09.01 169 248 759 257 805 sgi IRIX5.3 5.3 131 313 671 278 641 alpha OSF1 V3.2 198 709 1109 629 994 *Local* Communication bandwidths in megabytes/second ---------------------------------------------------- Host OS Pipe TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem reread reread (libc) (hand) read write --------- ------------- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ----- Strongarm NetBSD 1.2D 2 3 1 4 16 2 36 23 Arm610/33 NetBSD 1.2D 2 1 1 5 10 0 13 23 i586 FreeBSD 2.1-S 18 0 29 50 41 38 65 83 i586 Linux 1.2.13 12 3 13 8 21 20 60 31 pa-risc HP-UX A.09.01 44 20 44 33 26 32 53 49 sgi IRIX5.3 5.3 34 22 32 44 32 31 69 66 alpha OSF1 V3.2 23 7 37 12 38 38 64 79 Memory latencies in nanoseconds (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) -------------------------------------------- Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses --------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- ------- Strongarm NetBSD 1.2D 214 5 720 740 No L2 cache? Arm610/33 NetBSD 1.2D 31 61 551 548 No L2 cache? i586 FreeBSD 2.1-S 99 10 101 180 i586 Linux 1.2.13 99 10 222 321 pa-risc HP-UX A.09.01 98 10 10 348 No L1 cache? sgi IRIX5.3 5.3 197 10 76 1018 alpha OSF1 V3.2 188 10 53 477 You can see that memory access is not too fast, but this is because of the lame rpc main board. It is much worse that context switching, communication latencies and bandwiths are very bad compared with other systems. Sometimes the Arm610 is faster than the Strongarm, I guess this is because of cache flushing or even switching off on Strongarm. But also the Arm610 is not too fast, it is even very slow, and there is not always the cache flushed or switched off. So my question is: is this because RiscBSD is not very optimized (so this could become better some day) or is it because of some other reason? Peter Teichmann ----- End Included Message -----