On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 03:40:58PM +0200, nordi wrote: > I wrote: > >Ian, you should modify all tests to use the same > >language settings everywhere, because otherwise the results are pure > >bogus. > The question is: Should we use POSIX or UTF8? If we use POSIX the > results are somehow unrealistic, because everyone uses UTF8 nowadays. If > we use UTF8, we cannot compare to older systems that do not support it. > > >And then re-run the benchmarks on 10.2 and 10.3 and we will > >hopefully see a performance _increase_ for 10.3 ;) > Hm, my results are not really what I had hoped for. More testing shows > that 10.3 still seems to be much slower than 10.0 on my system: > > Posix 10.0 UTF8 10.3 Posix 10.3 > ========== ======== ========== > Dhrystone 335.6 339.1 326.9 ok > Whetstone 198.4 203.5 201.7 ok > Execl 658.3 576.3 573.1 -13% > File Copy 1024 534.6 481.0 480.9 > File Copy 256 455.2 354.5 353.8 > File Copy 4096 588.3 717.4 736.2 > Pipe Throughput 468.1 277.6 283.3 -40% > Context Switch 554.3 384.1 385.4 -31% > Process Creat 1000.2 782.7 770.5 -23% > Shell Scripts1 873.0 343.8!!! 721.0 -17% > Shell Scripts8 893.6 331.7!!! 724.6 -19% > System Call 903.8 333.7 336.7 -63%!!! > ----- ----- ----- > Index Score: 568.9 397.3 450.6 > > The first two only do calculations and they are ok, some jitter, not > more. The last ones (syscall, pipe, switch, create processes) have a lot > of kernel involvement and score very low. The shell scripts also make > heavy use of pipes, which might explain why they still score much lower > for 10.3 than for 10.0, even though LANG=POSIX is used on both systems. > > Somehow this does not look right. The kernel in 10.3 seems to be _much_ > slower than in 10.0. Maybe someone forgot to activate some optimization > in the kernel config?
Can you run "oprofile" on them and see where time is wasted? Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
