Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:01:17 +0800 From: Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> Cc: gnn@FreeBSD.org, performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tarball of ported libmicro 0.3 available for testing... Message-ID: <1123466477.767.2.camel@spirit> In-Reply-To: <01F3BA1C-C7C6-41C7-AFE8-675FA972D1A3@FreeBSD.org> References: <m2hde3b3k8.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <01F3BA1C-C7C6-41C7-AFE8-675FA972D1A3@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 在 2005-08-08一的 03:15 +0200，Suleiman Souhlal写道： > Hello, > > On Aug 6, 2005, at 3:25 PM, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > > > I plan to make a port of this this weekend, but would like some > > feedback on this set of benchmarks. If they're useful I think we > > should make them part of a nightly benchmarking strategy. > > In case you're interested, I ran it on a dual p4 xeon (without > HyperThreading) from the netperf cluster, to compare the performance > of RELENG_5, RELENG_6 and HEAD. > You can find the results at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/stuff/ > compare_tiger-3.html . > It shows that RELENG_6 and HEAD are (in these tests) almost never > slower than RELENG_5, and often more than 20% faster. Great work! BTW. Is there any clue about why pthread_128 looks slower than RELENG_5 and then recovered in HEAD? Cheers, -- Xin LI <delphij delphij net> http://www.delphij.net/ [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBC9rzt/cVsHxFZiIoRAjpIAJ0Tzvs+ajWMOL94JnvQWDPUkq+lKwCdGXG+ b5EGNy0VTm+5e2ePUwJE2AY= =Psra -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1123466477.767.2.camel>