Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:47:37 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: mark@vmunix.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD shines..[Fwd: Re: semaphore speed] Message-ID: <199711051547.KAA11748@crh.cl.msu.edu> References: <63pai1$2u9$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In lists.freebsd.hackers you write:
>On Tue, Nov 04, 1997 at 12:03:09AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, John S. Dyson wrote:
>>
>> > Julian Elischer said:
>> > > oops I sent this to the wrong address before..
>> > >
>> > > participants:
>> > > jallison: Samba guru:
>> > > Andrew Tridgell: wrote Sambe.. Linux hacker
>> > > Julian: yours truely:
> > >
>> > > FreeBSD 2.2.2 on a 200MHz pentium
>> > > fcntl: 3.16579 secs
>> > > ipc: 2.63504 secs
>> > >
>> > > Linux 2.0.30 on a PPro200
>> > > fcntl: 12.2177 secs
>> > > ipc: 50.4559 secs
>> > >
>> > My results with FBSD-current on PPro200
>> >
>> > UP kernel:
>> > fcntl: 10.735 secs
>> > ipc: 9.17823 secs
>> >
>> > SMP kernel:
>> > fcntl: 17.8355 secs
>> > ipc: 9.10841 secs
>> >
>> > It appears that the 200MHz Pentium results are for a really fast
>> > machine :-). Is there a chance that there was an error in the
>> > Pentium test? Or are the results correct? (Sometimes Pentiums
>> > are paradoxically faster than PPro's.) I just want to make sure
>> > that people aren't misinformed that FreeBSD is *that* much faster
>> > than Linux...
>>
>> I just tried 2.2.0 (approx) on a pentium 90
>> I didn't have IPC compiled in, so I just did fcntl.
>> yielding 7.22 secs.
>> looks like we slowed it down more than a bit..
If someone will pony up the code their running, I'll give this a whirl on my
P-II/300
-Crh
--
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu
http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711051547.KAA11748>