Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:21:46 -0700 (MST)
From:      John Reynolds~ <jreynold@sedona.ch.intel.com>
To:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   benchmark "challenge" ...
Message-ID:  <14037.27274.794014.568566@hip186.ch.intel.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

One of my friends who is a zealot in the Linux camp recently sent me this
article that he pulled off their kernel mailing list. It's from "mr. lmbench"
Larry McVoy:

   I've been stress testing for the last day or so because I added a
   128MB DIMM and started getting crashes (turns out it is a known 
   problem with the FIC 503+ MB, so get the biggest DIMM you can 
   afford - it doesn't seem to like two of them at once).
   
   I'm sitting at the system, which is currently doing the following
   	   
   	   - running X, with an xfishtank & xearth in the background,
   	     the fish are moving, albeit slowly
   	   
   	   - running a "make -j 24" on the kernel
   
   	   - running a "tar cf - . | cat /dev/null" of my home directory,
   	     which is NFS mounted, so lots of network traffic
   
   	   - running "scrubber 120" which is a program which allocates 120MB
   	     of memory and then walks through it over and over, checking and
   	     setting values (this found "bad" memory when I had 2 DIMMS in).
   	     I'm running in 128MB total, and this program has an average RSS of
   	     100MB
   
   	   - running lat_pipe and bw_pipe in background, in an infinite loop
   
   	   - running top to watch all this
   
   And the system is, while sluggish, responsive while I'm typing.
   I've opened up windows during all of this and it works, again, sluggish
   but not so sluggish that you give up.  You could actually get work done
   on a system this busy.
   
   I'm very impressed - I do not think that SunOS (or any of the other
   Unices) ever got to this point.  If you did this to them, it was just
   intolerable.  So whatever you did, it's worth it.  Quite impressive,
   actually.

Not that, in the grand scheme of the planet, it REALLY matters, but what
sorts of "stress tests" do people routinely pull out of -current or more
importantly 3.1-stable? I still have a lowly 486 (upgrading RSN :), but
I've had more things running at 1 time under X than I thought possible for
a 486 (I used to "stress test" OS/2 by starting up gobs of things and it
would eventually require a reboot to come back to normal). It would have been
nice had he told us what CPU he was using--but I just have to believe that
FreeBSD is on par with this "impressive" (well it impressed him) Linux
achievement.

See ya,

-Jr
   
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| John Reynolds               CEG, CCE, Next Generation Flows, HLA          |
| Intel Corporation         MS: CH6-210   Phone: 554-9092   pgr: 868-6512   |
| jreynold@sedona.ch.intel.com  http://www-aec.ch.intel.com/~jreynold/      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


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?14037.27274.794014.568566>