Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:04:45 +1000 (EST) From: Tony Maher <tonym@angis.usyd.edu.au> To: jdp@polstra.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Excellent Elf and others Message-ID: <199809012304.JAA21588@morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 3.0-beta-aout-98-08-23 >> Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 48.7 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) >> >> 3.0-beta-elf-98-09-01 >> Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 104.0 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples) 3.0-beta-elf-98-09-01 (using elf version of bytebench - not that I think it matters much) Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 103.0 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"? Sorry I generally look at them as just a figure of merit to compare with previous runs. I run bytebench after each make world or new hardware change just to get a quick basic figure of performance. Think its "lines per minute". the script used is basically: sort >sort.$$ <sort.src od sort.$$ | sort -n +1 > od.$$ grep the sort.$$ | tee grep.$$ | wc > wc.$$ rm sort.$$ grep.$$ od.$$ wc.$$ > "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. ;-) Faster! Of course ;-) And now after reading the script it is probably the softupdates (I did mention that :-) that is giving the performance boost. I should have run bytebench after switching on softupdates. The other tests from the run are similar to previous values. thanks tonym 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?199809012304.JAA21588>