Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!mips!winchester!mash From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: bc benchmark [sigh] Message-ID: <44371@mips.mips.COM> Date: 28 Dec 90 18:41:55 GMT References: <44342@mips.mips.COM> <15379@ogicse.ogi.edu> <1142@telesoft.com> <15424@ogicse.ogi.edu> Sender: news@mips.COM Reply-To: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 27 In article <15424@ogicse.ogi.edu> borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: >>The other "one number" we used was for capacity planning. After >You just said the secret word -- "capacity planning"! I wish the duck >were still around to drop down and give you fifty dollars! >>(Dr. Howard "Doc" Schemising - wonderful guy) developed a capacity >>test that would precisely model the current workload on a machine. >>This was used with great accuracy to measure the capacity of different >>machine (for that workload). >Is this published? Could you post it? The guys here and in "comp.arch" >would LOVE to see it! Yes, it would be good to see this. Note the important fact that there are two steps: a) Characterizing the workload b) Predicting the performance on that workload Part a) is why SPEC advises people to try to correlate their own workloads with some subset of SPEC benchmarks, and then ignore the other SPEC benchmarks, and in fact, I've started to see users doing this already. Also, I've seen some pretty good benchmarks, with workloads tailored to different departments within a company ... unfortunately, the best ones I've seen were all proprietary... -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086