Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!utkcs2!de5 From: de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: bc results (Coherent slams an IBM 3090) Message-ID: <1990Dec10.124927.9858@cs.utk.edu> Date: 10 Dec 90 12:49:27 GMT References: <1990Dec6.133344.2544@cs.utk.edu> <19040002@orac.HP.COM> Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: Dave Sill Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 27 In article <19040002@orac.HP.COM>, wunder@orac.HP.COM (Walter Underwood) writes: > > Dave Sill sez: > Notes: The time figure reported is "real", not "user" ... > >Excuse me, but this is stupid. You're not excused. There's no need to be rude about it. If you have something to say, then say it. If you disagree, present the facts and let them make your point. >Some of these machines were loaded, >and some were not, so please use "user time". Wall time (real) is >only meaningful if all of the load on the system is part of the >benchmark. That is not true for this benchmark, so your list is >invalid. As Michael Meissner pointed out in his article under the "Re: bc is bs" subject, it sometimes makes more sense to benchmark systems in their usual state. I agree that it's also useful to have some idea of how the system load has affected the results, so I've updated my table to include real, user, and system time, where available. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support