Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!alberta!access!edm!steve
From: steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Dhrystone compilation times
Message-ID: <3130@edm.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jun 88 20:25:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: edm.3130
References: <507@pcrat.UUCP>
Organization: Unexsys Systems, Edmonton,AB.
Lines: 27

From article <507@pcrat.UUCP>, by rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson):
> In article <5213@ico.ISC.COM> rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes:

>>I decided to run the Dhrystone 2 benchmark on some machines we have around

>>It would be interesting if people made notes of compilation times.  I'm not
>>suggesting adding this as some "formal measure" because I don't think it's
>>a particularly accurate measure.  However, it probably adds $.02 worth of
>>additional information.

> This has been suggested before.  In order for those results to have any
> meaning,  the disk system (bus, controllers, drives) would have to be
> indicated in the results.  That can of worms has too many sources
(he then goes on with a 5minute description of all the weird things his
(mythical?) system does.

Although he's certainly right about the kind of can of worms this
produces, I have to agree that compile time gives a reasonable
guess as to how effecient a system is at things OTHER than a drystone
If CPU time and real time are both included, then you can also make 
a guess as to how much room there is to improve things on the I/O
side of things (even if the improvement may not be technologically possible).
-- 
-------------
 Stephen Samuel 			Disclaimer: You betcha!
  {ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve
  BITNET: USERZXCV@UQV-MTS