From owner-freebsd-questions  Tue Apr 30 09:16:20 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA18370
          for questions-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA18364
          Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199604301616.JAA18364@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: tests
To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: andrew@sedona.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199604300143.LAA18051@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Apr 30, 96 11:13:34 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Michael Smith wrote:
> 
> Andrew S. Clapp stands accused of saying:
> > 
> > Anybody know where to find a benchmark package like dhry?
> > We are pitting solaris-x86 against freebsd!  :-)  Oughtta
> > be a interesting race as sunsoft says that 2.5 is "supposed"
> > to be competitive.
> 
> Why would an operating system significantly bias a CPU speed benchmark?

	most CPU benchmarks are not CPU benchmarks--they are CPU and
	memory subsystem benchmarks.  the OS affects the benchmarks
	access to memory.  a benchmark tha shows this beautiully is
	Hint from ameslab.  the same taks is run repeatedly, each time
	with a larger set size.  the results are a graph of speed vs
	memory footprint.  most machines showhte size of on-chip cache,
	L2 cahce, memory size as steps in the graph.  each step lower
	than the previous one as the problem size access slower and slower
	resources.

	http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/scl/HINT/HINT.html


jmb
--
Jonathan M. Bresler           FreeBSD Postmaster             jmb@FreeBSD.ORG
FreeBSD--4.4BSD Unix for PC clones, source included. http://www.freebsd.org/