From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jun 20 12:07:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA01811
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA01806
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA05885; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Dyson <dyson@dyson.iquest.net>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: In case anyone's interested in P5 vs P6 benchmarks. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:33:54 CDT."
             <199606201833.NAA09813@dyson.iquest.net> 
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:07:14 -0700
Message-ID: <5883.835297634@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> The p6 times were done on 2.1.  Relative to 2.1, 2.2 is approx 2x
> faster on Execl throughput, pipe throughput, shell scripts and fork times.
> The 2.2 code gives you 'almost p6 on 2.1' VM performance on a P5.

Oh damn, damn damn damn damn.  Sorry, wrong timings! [blush] Let me go
find the run I did on calweb before it was downgraded to 2.1.  I never
meant to mix and match the two!

					Jordan