From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 2 18:50:00 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id SAA12155 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:50:00 -0700 Received: from gndrsh.aac.dev.com (gndrsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA12136 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:49:57 -0700 Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by gndrsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA08899; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:49:40 -0700 From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199506030149.SAA08899@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Subject: Re: A performance mystery To: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu (Charles Henrich) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Cc: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199506021826.LAA23909@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Charles Henrich" at Jun 2, 95 02:26:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 845 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > > Okay, try a memory bandwidth benchmark to see if we have something there > > that is grossly different. A quick and easy bcopy test is to run iozone > > that does not remove the temp file on a 1/4 memory size file repeatedly, > > that should hit the buffer cache totatally and give us ~ bcopy rates. > > The ram-speed test posted here a couple of weeks ago gives: > > Micon: 10mb/20mb > Compaq: 10mb/7mb This may be repeated, but I don't see my statements on this back from the list. ram-speed is a cache defeat program, it will *NOT* approximate bcopy rates, that is why I asked you to do iozone on 1/4 memory size. I already saw your ram-speed results in the first posting. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD