Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!rosenkra
From: rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: expanded bc results
Message-ID: <111442@convex.convex.com>
Date: 15 Dec 90 18:35:56 GMT
References: <1990Dec11.145500.6650@cs.utk.edu> <550@cadlab.sublink.ORG> <1990Dec14.131722.7878@cs.utk.edu>
Sender: news@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 49

In article <1990Dec14.131722.7878@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes:
>In article <550@cadlab.sublink.ORG>, staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) writes:
>> [ talks of dumping 3090 and fujitsu in favor of pc with coherent :-) ]
>
>On the off chance that you just haven't received any of the numerous
>articles discussing the valid uses of this test and its severe
>limitations, I'll refrain from requesting that you "get a clue."
>
>But did you read the disclaimer in that article?  The one that says
>it's most useful for comparing similar systems and for tracking a
>system over time?

the problem, dave, is that some people DO NOT READ THE FINE PRINT.
you are propagating misinformation if you do not do the test correctly
in the first place. that means at least compare the same source code.
otherwise, i will rewrite bc to parse the input and see if it is a 
trivial test. then i will beat any bc on any machine not similarly
altered (including, hopefully, a coherent 386 pc :-). this tests my
skill, not the system. you'd be benchmarking analysts, not machines,
not that this isn't what often happens in real life anyway.

you can call people who might rely on this bm naive or irresponsible or
whatever, but i think the real guilt lies with the testers, not the
interpreters.

the only thing each of the tests reported have in common is that they
(presumably) all compute the same result.

>The only thing worse than a zillion bc result postings is hal a
>zillion mindless bc benchmark-bashing postings.

sorry to disagree, i think the bashing is what makes this sort of
group worthy. otherwise i or you or anybody can post anything and get
away with it. and it is not just poor defenseless vendors doing the
bashing.

why don't you do it right? meaning write a bc and distribute the source
with guidlines for running it and reporting results? i suspect some
damage has already been done. and i would NOT be suprised if "bc timings"
start appearing in some RFPs...

-bill
rosenkra@convex.com

[ as always, just my feelings, not necessarily my employer's ]

--
Bill Rosenkranz            |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra
Convex Computer Corp.      |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com