From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 12:52:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1782F16A4CE; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A71E43D2F; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:52:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i1NKq2rQ063978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:52:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1NKptuL023844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:51:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1NKpsc5088521; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:51:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1NKprfZ088520; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:51:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:51:53 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Wilko Bulte Message-ID: <20040223205152.GC44313@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <20040223192103.59ad7b69.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20040223191652.GB5837@freebie.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040223191652.GB5837@freebie.xs4all.nl> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.61 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on cicely5.cicely.de X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:34:29 -0800 cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Oliver Lehmann cc: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bad performance on alpha? (make buildworld) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:52:09 -0000 On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:21:03PM +0100, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I run several buildworld's on both, an Alpha EV56 and a Intel PII. I'm > > wondering that the Pentium beats the Alpha. Both systems have INVARIANTS* > > and WITNESS* disabled. Furthermore, no special tweakups - nearly "out of > > the box" configured. > > ... > > > And I don't think CURRENT is that "faster" than 5.2.1. Why does (my) alpha > > performs so bad? Some ideas? Is that behaviour common for FreeBSD/alpha or > > did I missed something in my consideration? > > Bit of a FAQ, but the last time I checked it was due to the code generation > for Alpha being lots slower. I think thats around factor 2-4 slower. Especially without having CPUTYPE >=ev56 set. In fact te factor varies much around machine types, compiled code, compiler version and moon phase. Also I think the values are not that bad considered that the ev56 core is years older than that of the PII. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de