Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!imagine!pawl22.pawl.rpi.edu!jesup From: jesup@pawl22.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Why is SPARC so slow? Message-ID: <167@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> Date: 18 Dec 87 13:30:55 GMT References: <6964@apple.UUCP> <8885@sgi.SGI.COM> <1115@winchester.UUCP> <6993@apple.UUCP> <1941@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <36626@sun.uucp> <1162@winchester.UUCP> Sender: news@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU Reply-To: beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab - Troy, NY Lines: 24 Keywords: SPARC, RISC, Sun-4/200, R2000, M/1000 John, one thing was left unmentioned: the unix benchmarks you give are VERY dependant on filing-system implementation and, even more so, on the disks used and how fragmented they are. I'm sure I could cause a factor of two decrease in performance by fragmenting your disks or making you use slower ones. Any benchmarks that rely on file-system access should either use the same disks, preferably the exact same ones so the fragmentation is the same (I know, impractical), or at least try to quantify these differences and state exactly what the hardware is, avg seek times, how fragmented, etc. Better yet is not to rely on any OS and certainly not file-system dependant benchmarks. If you are testing the performance of a specific system configuration (CPU, memory, disk, OS, etc, etc) fine, do so. If you are addressing the performance of the CPU/FPU/cache (which seems to be what is discussed in this group), don't use those benchmarks or at least try to factor out the peripheral/OS/whatever differences. Just trying to adhere to your philosophy of real data wherever possible. :-) // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// lunge!jesup@beowulf.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup)