Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!pioneer!eugene
From: eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: brash micros ... [really: CPI versus (cycles)/(work)]
Message-ID: <2717@ames.arpa>
Date: Wed, 9-Sep-87 14:02:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.2717
Posted: Wed Sep  9 14:02:36 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Sep-87 04:27:25 EDT
References: <622@winchester.UUCP> <12953@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 23

In article <2716@ames.arpa> lamaster@ames.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>point very seriously now.  Thanks, folks.]  Many people out there would no
>doubt prefer using a Un*x oriented benchmark with lots of typical utilities,
>fork and exec exercizers, TCP/IP/network &etc. stuff, rn ...  It all depends
>upon the set of applications that you will run on the machine.

I have real problems running Unix programs like nroff as benchmarks.
The problem is that these programs are very data dependent.  I would
want consistent, well considered data run thru various programs like
this.  Consider the performance of nroff with absolutely no directives
inside it versus a file heavily loaded with directives.  I stop short of
endorsing any "standard test file," since no such thing exists.  (Actually
run both cases).  This is why I don't care for the AIM benchmark and
certain other well intended benchmarks.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene