Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!slovax!lm
From: lm@slovax.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IOStone
Message-ID: <144018@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 22 Oct 90 19:44:35 GMT
References: <7834@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 26

In article <7834@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> becker@iris.ucdavis.edu (Jeffrey Becker) writes:
>In article <143502@@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, lm@@slovax.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes:
>> In article <2387@@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> jtc@@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>> >In article <14900016@@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> sritacco@@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Steve Ritacco) writes:
>> 
>> IOstone is misnamed and misleading.  It ought to be called "cachestone" or
>> "buffer cachestone".  It does *not* measure I/O performance.  It measures
>> cache performance.
>
>We feel that IOStone is the best widely used indicator of IO system
>performance that is currently available.  

Widely used?  By whom?

>						Jeff Becker
>						Arvin Park

Perhaps you would care to comment on why this benchmark was rejected as
an addition to the standard SPEC benchmarks?   Especially in light of the
fact that SPEC would *love* to add an IO benchmark to their suite that
does what you claim yours does.

Come on guys, it's obvious that you blew it with this benchmark.  Instead of
arguing endlessly about how great it is, why don't you go off and try again?
---
Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems     (415) 336-7627       ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com