Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!news
From: xxdon@monet.lerc.nasa.gov (Don Sosoka)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: more bc babble
Message-ID: <1990Dec11.163826.5439@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 11 Dec 90 16:38:26 GMT
Reply-To: xxdon@monet.lerc.nasa.gov (Don Sosoka)
Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
Lines: 29

In regards to the the comment that the bc test is *bad* for multi-user
machines, it was realized that load played a part in the timings.  It is for
that reason that the originol posting gave both REAL and USER timings.  In
general the REAL times were considerable greater than the USER times for
multi-user machines while for single-user machines the two numbers were usually
close.  Here are the numbers again:

Vendor       Model          User      Real
SGI          4D25           8.1        8.4
SGI          320 (2 cpu)    5.2        5.2
SGI          340 (4 cpu)    5.2        5.2
SGI          3030          37.8       39.4
CRAY         XMP4/8         7.8       20.7
CRAY         YMP4/64        5.9       13.9
CONVEX       C220           9.4       10.4
IBM          RS6000/530     3.5        3.5 
AMDAHL       5870 (UTS)     4.3       17.6


As for the CONVEX numbers, our CONVEX is relatively new and not currently      
heavily used.  I just repeated it again with 7 users on total and got the
following:   

          9.9 real             9.4 user
          9.7 real             9.4 user
          9.7 real             9.4 user

Again, no comments were made on what all this means (if anything), results were
simply reported.