Date: 21 Jul 1999 12:53:03 +0300 From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@iki.fi> To: jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: speed of file(1) Message-ID: <86u2qy2utc.fsf@not.demophon.com> In-Reply-To: jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au's message of "21 Jul 1999 01:15:28 %2B0300" References: <bulk.14378.19990720084242@hub.freebsd.org> <99Jul21.075453est.40331@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au (Peter Jeremy) writes:
> "Leif Neland" <leifn@neland.dk> wrote:
> >My 60MHz Pentium, FreeBSD
> >
> >time file /usr/home/leif/vnc-3.3.2r
> >/usr/home/leif/vnc-3.3.2r3_unixsrc.tgz: gzip compressed data, deflated,
> >original filename, last modified: Thu Jan 21 19:23:21 1999
> >
> >real 0m1.237s
> >user 0m0.758s
> >sys 0m0.394s
> I can't believe these figures.
Hmm, a 200 MHz Pentium (MMX), 3.2-RELEASE, everything in cache:
$ /usr/bin/time file twofish.tar.gz
twofish.tar.gz: gzip compressed data, deflated, last modified: Mon Jun 15 02:40:53 1998, os: Unix
0.35 real 0.24 user 0.10 sys
I'd say that considering that things are cached (cpu-bound), it's very
accurately proportional to Leif's time. Variances can be accounted
for by the slight implementation differences (the MMX version has a
bigger L1 and better branch prediction).
It's also reasonably proportional to a 400 MHz PII (0.09/0.08/0.01
running 3.2 -- 0.06/0.04/0.01 running 2.2.8, BTW). Considering the
completely different core, this is also quite close to what you might
expect.
> I can't reproduce the complaint using a 64MB PII-266 running -CURRENT -
> there's no evidence of lack of speed, and profiling file(1) doesn't
> show any anomolies.
What are your results, then?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86u2qy2utc.fsf>