Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Benchmarks in August IEEE Micro
Message-ID: <5100142@ccvaxa>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 11:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.5100142
Posted: Fri Sep 26 11:41:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 04:49:11 EDT
References: <322@oblio.UUCP>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:oblio.UUCP:322:ccvaxa:5100142:000:740
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Sep 26 10:41:00 1986


..> `Averaging' benchmarks using the arithmetic or geometric mean

Whatever you do, you shouldn't combine benchmarks without weight factors
proportional to the importance of the jobs characterized by the benchmark
to you. You can use any weights in any type of characteristic you want,
but not all are meaningful. For example, if throughput is what you want 
to optimize, and your weights are the percentage of your job mix that is
characterized by each benchmark, then a linearly weighted arithmetic mean
is the average to use.

That, of course, assumes that there are no interactions between jobs.

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms