Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:27:10 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: tonym@angis.usyd.edu.au Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Excellent Elf and others Message-ID: <199809011727.KAA13958@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <199809011204.WAA01370@morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU> References: <199809011204.WAA01370@morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199809011204.WAA01370@morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU>, Tony Maher <tonym@angis.usyd.edu.au> wrote: > bytebench did show the following (I dont know if this is from elf > or something else changed - maybe bytebench should be recompiled as elf. > Doing this now) > > 3.0-beta-aout-98-08-23 > Shell scripts (1 concurrent) 383.9 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > Shell scripts (2 concurrent) 219.6 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > Shell scripts (4 concurrent) 98.3 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 48.7 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > > 3.0-beta-elf-98-09-01 > Shell scripts (1 concurrent) 734.9 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > Shell scripts (2 concurrent) 396.3 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > Shell scripts (4 concurrent) 204.0 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) > Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 104.0 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) For those of us who don't know anything about bytebench, could you explain what these numbers mean? What's an "lpm"? I'm sure that many of us are eager to look intelligent by saying, "Well, of course, that's obviously to be expected! The clear and trivial reason is blah blah blah ..." But first, we have to know whether it's saying that ELF is faster or slower than a.out. ;-) John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809011727.KAA13958>