extraño calculo de los bogomips
Hola lista, Quería haceros una preguntita a cerca de los bogomips y es que he notado que algunas veces mi portátil me a dado un valor extraño. Mi portátil lleva un centrino core duo con lo que al hacer un cat a /proc/cpuinfo muestra el calculo de los bogomip, pero es que en algunas ocasiones el calculo de los bogomips de un core al otro ha variado mucho. Normalmente tienen 4000 bogomips cada core, pero alguna vez he visto que uno tiene 4000 y el otro 15000. Puede esto ser normal? Muchas gracias y un saludo.
Re: extraño calculo de los bogomips
El dom, 23-09-2007 a las 16:16 +0200, Emilio-José Jiménez escribió: Hola lista, Quería haceros una preguntita a cerca de los bogomips y es que he notado que algunas veces mi portátil me a dado un valor extraño. Mi portátil lleva un centrino core duo con lo que al hacer un cat a /proc/cpuinfo muestra el calculo de los bogomip, pero es que en algunas ocasiones el calculo de los bogomips de un core al otro ha variado mucho. Normalmente tienen 4000 bogomips cada core, pero alguna vez he visto que uno tiene 4000 y el otro 15000. Puede esto ser normal? Muchas gracias y un saludo. ¿que dice la línea cpu MHz en ese momento en que se ven distinto? Es por el escalado de frecuencia seguramente. Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: extraño calculo de los bogomips
El Sunday 23 September 2007 16:43:40 Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo escribió: El dom, 23-09-2007 a las 16:16 +0200, Emilio-José Jiménez escribió: Hola lista, Quería haceros una preguntita a cerca de los bogomips y es que he notado que algunas veces mi portátil me a dado un valor extraño. Mi portátil lleva un centrino core duo con lo que al hacer un cat a /proc/cpuinfo muestra el calculo de los bogomip, pero es que en algunas ocasiones el calculo de los bogomips de un core al otro ha variado mucho. Normalmente tienen 4000 bogomips cada core, pero alguna vez he visto que uno tiene 4000 y el otro 15000. Puede esto ser normal? Muchas gracias y un saludo. ¿que dice la línea cpu MHz en ese momento en que se ven distinto? Es por el escalado de frecuencia seguramente. Saludos Hola. Gracias por contestar. Ahora mismo no se que es lo que ponía ya que lo he visto pocas veces, pero si vuelvo a verlo digo lo que pone. Puede llegar a ser normal?
Re: extraño calculo de los bogomips
El dom, 23-09-2007 a las 21:29 +0200, Emilio-José Jiménez escribió: Gracias por contestar. Ahora mismo no se que es lo que ponía ya que lo he visto pocas veces, pero si vuelvo a verlo digo lo que pone. Puede llegar a ser normal? Si, en sistemas con frecuencia dinámica de CPU y multicore si. En mi incel centrino, cuando la cpu está a 600Mhz marca 1200bogomips +/- y cuando está a p.ej. 1600Mhz marca 3000 bogomips +/- En un multicore, los procesos van a un core u otro, a no ser que el programa esté diseñado para sacar provecho en plan MPI. Entonces puede ser que una cpu muestre unos bogomips más altos que la otra, si tiene más carga. Para ver en top que procesos hay en cada CPU: f j enter La columna llamada 'P' (al lado de COMMAND) te indicará si el proceso está en la cpu0 o en la cpu1 Si en top pulsas: 1 Te cambiará el formato de los headers de arriba, mostrando la carga, iddle, etc de cada cpu por separado. Si quieres algo más visual, añade dos applets de frecuencia de cpu, al panel de gnome, y configura un applet para la cpu0 y otro para la cpu1. Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: extraño calculo de los bogomips
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 El 23/09/07 21:29, Emilio-José Jiménez escribió: (...) Ahora mismo no se que es lo que ponía ya que lo he visto pocas veces, pero si vuelvo a verlo digo lo que pone. Puede llegar a ser normal? Para que aparezca eso, deberás mirarlo a través de /proc/cpuinfo En todo caso, es una variación bastante brutal en el número de bogomips. Y eso influye de un microprocesador a otro. Cuanto más rápido es, más velocidad de bogomips tendrá. De todos modos, no veo normal que te aparezca como 15000... En mi caso, tengo al menos, unos 4273.10(CPU0) y 4270.08(CPU1). Y en estos momentos, tengo un uptime de 122 días, 20 horas y 57 minutos... - -- Slds de Santiago José López Borrazás. Admin de hackindex.com/.es/.info/.eu Conocimientos avanzados en seguridad informática. Conocimientos avanzados en redes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIVAwUBRvbMjbuF9/q6J55WAQoHzQ/9FyVlnanGI9B0KGm1fhtlD23n1D2EjrQr H+EjKbR6J+vv34WkVINnq3oPdfrEmTRNwf+d0onSPL12nqTd9dxHZKI6J2EXA0Wi Fsi5jdvg71epBABsh6G4N37gTmC991kOiqCM3NW5LC6gV3Z0pgD5E5pTkoS+rY6u aMsOkK4osB6No3nDNt8pIm/v9N/a+srFjv/ZKjUX+RhECVliJk3ph/xv63Do17KN tmbNAkq6A+Z9DerBxCl16R+PxEl1UFYgOeZthv9FjpD+htcy/oYb+I9Rk6q01SNI YZZAGkmgAGBE/2P0bzHuJKYFCt8IrVOPBHu8cKxoLTMCiDZe51hcNKBM1HsUtcX2 4qcEiwSOo6h+oxKhHikVBwaje77qNajagqAbZ+2yPjA9hw5oJX7boN356rKYiW+L liVs+oyYudofppQg7s+7g97PbwzqQOWzHW1uy3BZsECOrzgXMOrfWScmtiPJk2E8 i9pgJYuQfpfSJwIHwZMV/632CzlWfMDbBG3HoEazRqL2xYN1pisJhlEI52kCrJ3o 7ztLHhdTfDCoiCEB/ZqAAub01wq5zzc5D0CSu/5njvrS9WqD4uwfFss9cMNfBM/r +mimmyncAvTAfSSrvnReb3RIkNZ9B9uyD6AGIYaQTxZDxmu3p/IpWx50lT2jVuMN TkL9RT5dT84= =2hTD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: extraño calculo de los bogomips
Recuerda que el valor de bogomips es un valor no del todo acertado :) http://tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/BogoMips/#AEN125 On 9/23/07, Emilio-José Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: El Sunday 23 September 2007 16:43:40 Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo escribió: El dom, 23-09-2007 a las 16:16 +0200, Emilio-José Jiménez escribió: Hola lista, Quería haceros una preguntita a cerca de los bogomips y es que he notado que algunas veces mi portátil me a dado un valor extraño. Mi portátil lleva un centrino core duo con lo que al hacer un cat a /proc/cpuinfo muestra el calculo de los bogomip, pero es que en algunas ocasiones el calculo de los bogomips de un core al otro ha variado mucho. Normalmente tienen 4000 bogomips cada core, pero alguna vez he visto que uno tiene 4000 y el otro 15000. Puede esto ser normal? Muchas gracias y un saludo. ¿que dice la línea cpu MHz en ese momento en que se ven distinto? Es por el escalado de frecuencia seguramente. Saludos Hola. Gracias por contestar. Ahora mismo no se que es lo que ponía ya que lo he visto pocas veces, pero si vuelvo a verlo digo lo que pone. Puede llegar a ser normal?
Re: extraño calculo de los bogomips
El Sunday 23 September 2007 22:29:01 Santiago José López Borrazás escribió: El 23/09/07 21:29, Emilio-José Jiménez escribió: (...) Ahora mismo no se que es lo que ponía ya que lo he visto pocas veces, pero si vuelvo a verlo digo lo que pone. Puede llegar a ser normal? Para que aparezca eso, deberás mirarlo a través de /proc/cpuinfo En todo caso, es una variación bastante brutal en el número de bogomips. Y eso influye de un microprocesador a otro. Cuanto más rápido es, más velocidad de bogomips tendrá. De todos modos, no veo normal que te aparezca como 15000... En mi caso, tengo al menos, unos 4273.10(CPU0) y 4270.08(CPU1). Y en estos momentos, tengo un uptime de 122 días, 20 horas y 57 minutos... -- Slds de Santiago José López Borrazás. Admin de hackindex.com/.es/.info/.eu Conocimientos avanzados en seguridad informática. Conocimientos avanzados en redes. Hola gente. Muchas gracias por contestar. Creo recordar que lo bogomips se calculan al iniciar el sistema. Y la verdad es que a mi también me parece un poco brutal ese incremento tan grande entre un core y el otro. Normalmente me suele variar unos 10. Por eso os comentaba el tema, porque me parece un poco extraño. Puede ser que el procesador no este bien del todo?
Existe bogomips para win32 ?
Estou terminando um sistema de inventario e preciso comparar velocidade entre os varios computadores diferentes e para mim a unidade que o linux dá em bogomips serve, no entanto, tenho na minha rede maquinas windows também. Teria algum .exe para windows que também trouxesse a unidade bogomips para ele ? Essas maquinas Windows assim como as Linux também, não possui drives de disquete ou CDROM. As operacoes que consigo fazer são todas pela rede.
Re: Existe bogomips para win32 ?
Via Google http://hpm101.gotadsl.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=hpm:bogomipsbinaries Fabiano Em 13/04/07, hamacker[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: Estou terminando um sistema de inventario e preciso comparar velocidade entre os varios computadores diferentes e para mim a unidade que o linux dá em bogomips serve, no entanto, tenho na minha rede maquinas windows também. Teria algum .exe para windows que também trouxesse a unidade bogomips para ele ? Essas maquinas Windows assim como as Linux também, não possui drives de disquete ou CDROM. As operacoes que consigo fazer são todas pela rede. -- Abraços, Fabiano
Bogomips - Centrino
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, beim anzeigen der Prozessorinformationen auf meinem Notebook wird jedesmal eine andere bogomips-zahl ausgegeben! kann mir evtl. jemand sagen warum das so ist? Gruss, Christian p.s. der befehl wurde dreimal direkt hintereinander ausgefuehrt! ~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 13 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.70GHz stepping: 6 cpu MHz : 1698.782 cache size : 2048 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe est tm2 bogomips: 3366.91 ~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 13 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.70GHz stepping: 6 cpu MHz : 1698.782 cache size : 2048 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe est tm2 bogomips: 1584.42 ~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 13 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.70GHz stepping: 6 cpu MHz : 1698.782 cache size : 2048 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe est tm2 bogomips: 1188.32 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCChnRtBiV8pRsgnoRAu4qAJ9sa0CUOiAAu9P1+vojgUBYXeMXDgCg5zX7 oAH3B9S/1KUfHvHivDhp5rk= =NGzn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ): http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/ Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
Re: Bogomips - Centrino
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:10:25PM +0100, Christian Kerbetz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, beim anzeigen der Prozessorinformationen auf meinem Notebook wird jedesmal eine andere bogomips-zahl ausgegeben! kann mir evtl. jemand sagen warum das so ist? http://ftp.gwdg.de/LDP/HOWTO/BogoMips/x78.html Quoted from the Internet, origin unknown but brought to the attention by Eric S Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED], and Geoff Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED], there is an humourously illustrative definition of BogoMips as ''the number of million times per second a processor can do absolutely nothing.'' Ich gehe mal davon aus das sich durch automatisches speed stepping oder so sich die staendig wechselnden1 Werte ergeben. (Ist nur geraten - kann auch was voellig anderes sein!) Sven -- If God passed a mic to me to speak I'd say stay in bed, world Sleep in peace [The Cardigans - No sleep] -- Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ): http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/ Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
Re: Bogomips - Centrino
ja hallo erstmal,... Am Mittwoch, 9. Februar 2005 17:41 schrieb Sven Hoexter: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:10:25PM +0100, Christian Kerbetz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, beim anzeigen der Prozessorinformationen auf meinem Notebook wird jedesmal eine andere bogomips-zahl ausgegeben! kann mir evtl. jemand sagen warum das so ist? http://ftp.gwdg.de/LDP/HOWTO/BogoMips/x78.html Quoted from the Internet, origin unknown but brought to the attention by Eric S Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED], and Geoff Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED], there is an humourously illustrative definition of BogoMips as ''the number of million times per second a processor can do absolutely nothing.'' Wo ist denn dann der Unterschied zur Taktrate? 1 GHZ heißt doch eigentlich auch 1 Milliarde ASM-Nopes pro Sek. Keep smiling yanosz -- Achtung: Die E-Mail-Adresse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wird in Kürze deaktiviert werden. Bitte nutzen Sie die Adresse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bogomips - Centrino
Jan Lühr schrieb: ja hallo erstmal,... dito, Wo ist denn dann der Unterschied zur Taktrate? 1 GHZ heißt doch eigentlich auch 1 Milliarde ASM-Nopes pro Sek. Auf [1] findest du folgendes: BogoMips was named BogoMips for a reason; it's totally bogus as a benchmark. It's nothing more than a timer loop -- the kernel runs a null loop which does nothing but count down to 0. It calibrates this loop against the real time clock to see how fast it executes. From that point onwards the calibrated loop is used as a way for the kernel to do timing delay loops; for example a device driver might want to delay for 10 microseconds while hardware does something. The reported BogoMips figure is just how many times the delay loop can be executed in one second. So it really tells you nothing about how fast the processor is for useful work. Keep smiling yanosz MfG Jan [1] http://www.obsolyte.com/bogomips.html -- OpenPGP Key-Fingerprint: 0E9B 4052 C661 5018 93C3 4E46 651A 7A28 4028 FF7A pgpTNzBtZ51Ng.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: bogomips ?
Egor Tur said: Hi. A little question: programme `linux_logo' show 1264.84 Bogomips Total on my system, but `bogomips' - 634.00 BogoMips. Why do these values be different? Thanx. maybe they use different methods to get the result. maybe there was some program running in the background that skewed results, in any case you can get your bogomips from /proc/cpuinfo note this really is a bogus(hence the bogo) measure of performance I think it's only done to configure some sort of timing mechanism in the kernel during boot(not sure though). nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bogomips ?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:05:24AM +0200, Egor Tur wrote: Hi. A little question: programme `linux_logo' show 1264.84 Bogomips Total on my system, but `bogomips' - 634.00 BogoMips. Why do these values be different? Possibly you have a dual-CPU machine since 634*2 ~= 1264. Cat /proc/cpuinfo for the actual value(s) and add up each bogomips line. Regards, Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bogomips ?
Hi. A little question: programme `linux_logo' show 1264.84 Bogomips Total on my system, but `bogomips' - 634.00 BogoMips. Why do these values be different? Thanx. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bogus BogoMips with new kernel?
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 10:06:20PM +0200, Hugo van der Merwe wrote: Hello, I recently (this weekend) reïnstalled potato on a laptop, pentium 120, which used to have a couple of months old version of potato on it. It used to have a bogomips rating of about 48, if I remember correctly. Now, suddenly, with the default kernel (2.2.17...pre6 somethingorother, it used to run 2.2.13, I think, or something around there), I get a bogomips rating of 240! This certainly looks bogus to me. Any ideas? Bogomips are always bogus. (Bogomips means bogus millions of instructions per second.) Recently they've become even more bogus -- mine indicates twice my processor speed. If you want to fix it, go ahead. :) If not, don't worry about it because they're not important. Cheers, Chris -- pick, pack, pock, puck: like drops of water in a fountain falling softly in the brimming bowl.
Bogus BogoMips with new kernel?
Hello, I recently (this weekend) reïnstalled potato on a laptop, pentium 120, which used to have a couple of months old version of potato on it. It used to have a bogomips rating of about 48, if I remember correctly. Now, suddenly, with the default kernel (2.2.17...pre6 somethingorother, it used to run 2.2.13, I think, or something around there), I get a bogomips rating of 240! This certainly looks bogus to me. Any ideas? Please ensure that replies are cc'ed to me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), as I cannot handle all the traffic on debian-user g (I rather go for debian-laptop). Thanks, Hugo van der Merwe
BogoMIPS ?
Hi there, could anyone please tell me what BogoMIPS at bootup means? Thanks in advance, Uwe
Re: BogoMIPS ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: could anyone please tell me what BogoMIPS at bootup means? See the BogoMips mini-HOWTO, which you should be able to find in /usr/doc/HOWTO or /usr/share/doc/HOWTO depending on your version of Debian. `MIPS is short for Millions of Instructions Per Second. It is a measure for the computation speed of a program. Like most such measures, it is more often abused than used prop erly (it is very difficult to justly compare MIPS for dif ferent kinds of computers). BogoMips are Linus's invention. The kernel (or was it a device driver?) needs a timing loop (the time is too short and/or needs to be too exact for a non-busy-loop method of waiting), which must be calibrated to the processor speed of the machine. Hence, the kernel measures at boot time how fast a certain kind of busy loop runs on a computer. Bogo comes from bogus, i.e, something which is a fake. Hence, the BogoMips value gives some indication of the processor speed, but it is way too unscientific to be called anything but BogoMips. The reasons (there are two) it is printed during bootup is that a) it is slightly useful for debugging and for checking that the computers caches and turbo button work, and b) Linus loves to chuckle when he sees confused people on the news.' -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BogoMIPS ?
http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/mini/BogoMips Regards, Onno At 12:59 PM 2/19/00 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, could anyone please tell me what BogoMIPS at bootup means? Thanks in advance, Uwe -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
bogomips
Is this normal? I mean, that so low bogomips value. processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 1 model name : Pentium 60/66 stepping: 7 cpu MHz : 59.999660 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug: yes coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 bogomips: 23.91
Re: bogomips
Alberto Maurizi wrote: Is this normal? I mean, that so low bogomips value. model name : Pentium 60/66 cpu MHz : 59.999660 bogomips: 23.91 I've got an Intel P133. Approximating pro rata using your data gives 23.91 / 60 * 133 = 53. Actual reported value is 53.25 So I'd say it looks exactly right. Regards, Paul
Re: bogomips
Alberto Maurizi wrote: Is this normal? I mean, that so low bogomips value. model name : Pentium 60/66 cpu MHz : 59.999660 bogomips: 23.91 I've got an Intel P133. Approximating pro rata using your data gives 23.91 / 60 * 133 = 53. Actual reported value is 53.25 So I'd say it looks exactly right. Regards, Paul So mine doesn't make much sence then does it??? this is my /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 5 model : 1 model name : AMD-K5(tm) Processor stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 100.230957 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 pge bogomips: 199.88 -- Tim Nicholas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let the frantic Goddess and delerious drunk cry together in shadow for the puppy's sad stare, the forest and the death of the moon.
Re: bogomips
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:59:18AM +1300, Tim Nicholas wrote: Alberto Maurizi wrote: Is this normal? I mean, that so low bogomips value. model name : Pentium 60/66 cpu MHz : 59.999660 bogomips: 23.91 I've got an Intel P133. Approximating pro rata using your data gives 23.91 / 60 * 133 = 53. Actual reported value is 53.25 So I'd say it looks exactly right. So mine doesn't make much sence then does it??? this is my /proc/cpuinfo vendor_id : AuthenticAMD model name: AMD-K5(tm) Processor cpu MHz : 100.230957 bogomips : 199.88 It makes perfect sense, for an AMD-K5. Bogomips are as their name implies, bogus. Bogomips only make sense with respect to one particular CPU family. There is a bogomips explanation somewhere out there, in a FAQ somewhere else, too, no doubt. -- William Burrow -- New Brunswick, Canada How the Internet explodes myths... - the GOOD TIMES email virus hoax, brought to life courtesy Microsoft - MAKE MONEY FAST brought to reality on Wall Street by dot-coms and Linux
Re: bogomips
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Tim Nicholas wrote: Alberto Maurizi wrote: Is this normal? I mean, that so low bogomips value. model name : Pentium 60/66 cpu MHz : 59.999660 bogomips: 23.91 I've got an Intel P133. Approximating pro rata using your data gives 23.91 / 60 * 133 = 53. Actual reported value is 53.25 So mine doesn't make much sence then does it??? vendor_id : AuthenticAMD model name: AMD-K5(tm) Processor cpu MHz : 100.230957 bogomips : 199.88 There is a BogoMips mini-HOWTO in /usr/doc/HOWTO ... Martin - -- Where do you want to go today? - As far from Redmond as possible! For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBOFgfX7CGSMW7I2etAQHnDwQAgCklbt6Tbut8V/XFtI/eBWbkIMoO7eBS 27eafJUDqFYnQNiGOVNFNFXgSBsGph2q5OqDjH6CpjS1NMaM/OhIuJmEKUSFjFg1 hkcbUkga+/kv5CtfrXgq16XTFx9WSBdRSI4qCSHqKiqY1FcFP+kg29N6f8PcAJPe IbG6G+nvIN0= =Db2x -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
On Sun, 16 May 1999, R. Brock Lynn wrote: Raymond A. Ingles wrote: On Sun, 9 May 1999, George Bonser wrote: Well I got the old 386 put back together [...] Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. [...] I guess I won't be compiling any kernels on that box ... well, maybe ONE just to see how long it takes. Okay, now *that's* going to take quite a while on a modern kernel. Hope you've got a week or two to spare. :- The average compile time for a kernel, (1.2.8ish or so) on the 486sx/25 6MB took about 6 hours. A 386 is just plain slower than a 486, even at the same clock speed. Intel did a lot of profiling and made the most commonly-executed instructions faster (and slowed some uncommon ones down). I've heard of compile times in the weeks on modern kernels. I haven't tried it on Irving yet, but from compiling a few toy programs I wouldn't be surprised... On the other hand, let me tell you about coding under Minix on an 8088 w/512K of RAM... :- Heh, let's try not to start another flame fest with Andy Tannenbaum... ;^) ... You never never know *what* something like that can lead to... (=:] Well, considering that linux-8086 can't compile *anything* yet by itself, Andy's actually slightly ahead. :- Sincerely, Ray Ingles (248) 377-7735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] If all the muscles in your body pulled in the same direction, you could lift over twenty tons. But you'd walk funny. - L. M. Boyd
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
Raymond A. Ingles wrote: On Sun, 9 May 1999, George Bonser wrote: Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. Heh, I ran GNU/Linux, on a 486sx/25 with 6MB ram and a 130MB harddrive running most of it from a live directory structure on the CDROM, a few years ago circa 1995. It was Slackware at the time, but in general everything ran very well. I even ran X Window on it, and it did just fine! A bit slow, but it *worked*! Once installed, though, things are zippy emough. Irving (my 386) is not a speed demon, but I actually ran X on it once, just to see if I could, and it worked reasonably well. Yep. See above. I guess I won't be compiling any kernels on that box ... well, maybe ONE just to see how long it takes. Okay, now *that's* going to take quite a while on a modern kernel. Hope you've got a week or two to spare. :- The average compile time for a kernel, (1.2.8ish or so) on the 486sx/25 6MB took about 6 hours. (of course you have to also realize that all the binaries were being run from the live filesystem on the CDROM too! That was even slower than paging physical memory to the swap partition.) I used time make zImage to time it. :) I was living in a school dormitory at the time, so I would just set the compile to go while I went to class, and it'd be done when I came home in the afternoon. :^) And I could telnet into it through the phone line while working at my help desk job on campus. :^) I was also using SLiRP at that time with a dialup shell account on an AIX machine of the school's to be one of the first, if not the first student at LSU to have WWW access in a campus dorm! ;^) SLiRP was great!!! All my 'puter friends were jealous 'cause they couldn't figure it out. :^) A 386 is a nice machine in some ways, but it's never been the fastest compiler in the world. On the other hand, let me tell you about coding under Minix on an 8088 w/512K of RAM... :- Heh, let's try not to start another flame fest with Andy Tannenbaum... ;^) ... You never never know *what* something like that can lead to... (=:] --Brock Lynn - PGP key ID: FED76A3D [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 / 5 / 1999 __ _Debian GNU R. Brock Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /(_)_ __ _ ___ __ http://www.debian.org/ irc.openprojects.net / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / 'Free Software' / /__| | | | | |_| | Remember that's Free as in Freedom, not Free as \/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ in price! Debian's the Greatest!
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
Oh, I agree. Note that I am installing a pretty minimum system anyway. It was not the size of the packages I was complaining about, it was the the debian utils seem to be rather inefficient. I imagine anoyone installing on a 486 would see the same things. My biggest peeve was the redetection of modules every time you installed one in the kernel configuration section of the install. That took nearly two minutes to complete each time. Seems to me it could remember which modules it detected 10 seconds ago. That alone would shave nearly 20 minutes off the initial install. I have a 486 here with 16MB RAM. I make only a rescue disk, the driver disk and base file is on the hd already. It takes less than 5 minutes to install on it. Yes, I'm serious -- I timed it. Regards Sarel Botha
Off-topic: what is bogoMIPS?
I understand what MIPS is (Million Instructions per Second), but what does the bogo stand for? My 486-33 measures 4 bogoMIPS during Linux boot-up, so how is this calculated? -Hans
Re: Off-topic: what is bogoMIPS?
*- On 12 May, Hans van den Boogert wrote about Off-topic: what is bogoMIPS? I understand what MIPS is (Million Instructions per Second), but what does the bogo stand for? My 486-33 measures 4 bogoMIPS during Linux boot-up, so how is this calculated? -Hans see /usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/BogoMips.gz `MIPS is short for Millions of Instructions Per Second. It is a measure for the computation speed of a program. Like most such measures, it is more often abused than used propAD erly (it is very difficult to justly compare MIPS for difAD ferent kinds of computers). BogoMips are Linus's invention. The kernel (or was it a device driver?) needs a timing loop (the time is too short and/or needs to be too exact for a non-busy-loop method of waiting), which must be calibrated to the processor speed of the machine. Hence, the kernel measures at boot time how fast a certain kind of busy loop runs on a computer. Bogo comes from bogus, i.e, something which is a fake. Hence, the BogoMips value gives some indication of the processor speed, but it is way too unscientific to be called anything but BogoMips. The reasons (there are two) it is printed during bootup is that a) it is slightly useful for debugging and for checking that the computers caches and turbo button work, and b) Linus loves to chuckle when he sees confused people on the news.' -- Brian - Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -
Re: Off-topic: what is bogoMIPS?
I understand what MIPS is (Million Instructions per Second), but what does the bogo stand for? My 486-33 measures 4 bogoMIPS during Linux boot-up, so how is this calculated? -Hans It means 'bogus MIPS', in that it's not the real MIPS value for your system, but a calculated one. I have no idea how it's calculated though. Rob.
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Pann McCuaig wrote: On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:50:30PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: I guess I won't be compiling any kernels on that box ... well, maybe ONE just to see how long it takes. :) If memory serves, my first linux box, a 386SX-16 with 4MB took about 5 hours to compile 1.0.9. ISTR that compiling kernel V0.11 took about 5 minutes on the old Northgate 4MB 386-20 I was using in 1992. Of course, the kernel's kind of grown since then. -- Jonathan Guthrie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Brokersys +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA
Re: Off-topic: what is bogoMIPS?
Hans van den Boogert schrieb: I understand what MIPS is (Million Instructions per Second), but what does the bogo stand for? My 486-33 measures 4 bogoMIPS during Linux boot-up, so how is this calculated? -Hans hello Hans, the Bogomips-howto may give you further information. It it is not a benchmark because for different processors and manufacturers it is calculated with a different formula, so two comparable systems may have very different bogomips-values. But it is a method for controlling if your system is optimal configured: Calculate for your processor with the formula from the howto and compare with the bootmessage. Bernd Mayer
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:50:30PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: Hi George! Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. In dselect the Scanning available packages .. part puts out about one dot every three seconds. It will probably take overnight to install from CDROM. I thought Linux was supposed to be snappy on old hardware? Or at LEAST as fast as Windows. The kernel seems fast enough but the distro-specific stuff is pretty doggy. Once the system is installed, it does perform sufficiently well (talking of an AMD386 DX40 w/ 16MB , though), IMHO, but the install is a pain nevertheless. It was clocked 7.94 BogoMips, BTW. Besides the OS' you mentioned above, did you bother trying to install FreeBSD on it? I had it installed on said machine and ran several (maybe somewhere near a dozen) port compiles at once, totalling ~200 make/cc processes, at load of about 20-25 and worth 80MB of swap. All these processes were run at a low priority and one could still work with the machine without to much delay. This had me really impressed. -- thomas..powered.by.debian/linux. irc.:.#chatgate, #frust.ger
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. In dselect the Scanning available packages .. part puts out about one dot every three seconds. That's life. Some of the time may be due to slower disk i/o, some of it is due to dpkg thinking as is copies information into /var/lib/dpkg/available. I would recommend that you just forget about dselect, and install what you need by hand. Carl
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
Another thing to think about might be NFSing what you need from another machine. Use the 386 as what amounts to (almost) a diskless client that gets all its files off another machine except /boot. On Sun, 9 May 1999, Carl Mummert wrote: Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. In dselect the Scanning available packages .. part puts out about one dot every three seconds. That's life. Some of the time may be due to slower disk i/o, some of it is due to dpkg thinking as is copies information into /var/lib/dpkg/available. I would recommend that you just forget about dselect, and install what you need by hand. Carl -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
George Bonser writes: Man, I think maybe the maintainers should be forced to install their stuff on a 386 just to get some perspective. CPU horsepower sure can cover up inefficient code. Or to put it another way, an system without any CPU horsepower sure exposes the inefficiencies. Hmm. A few months back I was running Hamm on my test box (386DX33 with 8M). It was slow, but not anywhere near as slow as you describe. It did take several hours to complete a dselect run, but I blame that on the old Mitsumi 1X CD drive. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:50:30PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. [snip!] I guess I won't be compiling any kernels on that box ... well, maybe ONE just to see how long it takes. :) If memory serves, my first linux box, a 386SX-16 with 4MB took about 5 hours to compile 1.0.9. Cheers, Pann -- What's All the Buzz About Linux? L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ http://www.ourmanpann.com/linux/ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
On Sun, 9 May 1999, George Bonser wrote: Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. I would suggest one of the several super-minimal distributions out there, like the Linux Router Project - those really make more sense for something like this. Havoc
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In dselect the Scanning available packages .. part puts out about one dot every three seconds. Isn't this output from 'dpkg'?, it can build huge internal tables (or something like that at least it grew to a wopping 13MB RSS for me once.). However I think it has a --small-mem option, maybe that improves stuff? Jan
Re: Life at 4 bogomips
On Sun, 9 May 1999, George Bonser wrote: Well I got the old 386 put back together, figured I would use it for a firewall. 386SX33 with 10MB of RAM. Man, what an example to show what OS bloat has done! I used to install Win31 on it, even installed OS/2 Warp on it. Now it is running Debian and MAN is it S-L-O-W. Well, technically it's *installing* Debian... In dselect the Scanning available packages .. part puts out about one dot every three seconds. I'd agree, even on a 486-100 w/64MB of RAM, installing Debian is not fast. I usually start it up, go away, and then come back and answer questions every once in a while. It took *quite* a while on my 386SX-16 w/6Mb of RAM. About a weekend, I think. Long enough that I dread ever having to do it again. A good chunk of that was due to simple swapping, though - there's no good substitute for enough RAM. Once installed, though, things are zippy emough. Irving (my 386) is not a speed demon, but I actually ran X on it once, just to see if I could, and it worked reasonably well. Running modconf ... where it looks to see which modules are available (like, almost any time you hit a key) ... go get a cup of coffee. Why can't it remember which modules it saw the last time it looked? Man, I think maybe the maintainers should be forced to install their stuff on a 386 just to get some perspective. CPU horsepower sure can cover up inefficient code. Or to put it another way, an system without any CPU horsepower sure exposes the inefficiencies. There does seem to be some less-than-optimal coding in some parts of the install. Part of it's due to large chunks of it being written in Perl. Well-written C will always be faster than well-written Perl. But even so, a I think some better algorithms could be chosen. I guess I won't be compiling any kernels on that box ... well, maybe ONE just to see how long it takes. Okay, now *that's* going to take quite a while on a modern kernel. Hope you've got a week or two to spare. :- A 386 is a nice machine in some ways, but it's never been the fastest compiler in the world. On the other hand, let me tell you about coding under Minix on an 8088 w/512K of RAM... :- Sincerely, Ray Ingles (248) 377-7735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [B]eing able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. - Eric Scott Raymond
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Sami Dalouche wrote: Hi, I have a P166 sitting right behind me and it comes up with 66.00 BogoMips. but in front of me is a K6-11-350 which peaks out at 696.00 BogoMips. Sooo does that mean I can do more than 10 times as much work on the K6 ?? What a sales gimick !! Probably means the s... hot risc inside the K6 loops real fast compared to the cisc Pentium. My cyrix P166+ (a 133 Mhz CPU) displays : Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 132.00 BogoMips On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. Does anybody have any ideias? -- Pedro Guerreiro (aka digito)([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Diplomacy: the art of letting someone have your own way. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- // -oOo- -oOo ---oOo--\\ | Sami Dalouche | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM : linhax| | 01.34.83.16.76 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ : 25529539 | \\ -oOo- -oOo ---oOo--// -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Cheers, Colin Tree
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Colin Tree wrote: Hi, I have a P166 sitting right behind me and it comes up with 66.00 BogoMips. but in front of me is a K6-11-350 which peaks out at 696.00 BogoMips. Sooo does that mean I can do more than 10 times as much work on the K6 ?? What a sales gimick !! Hi Colin There is a formula for bogomips for most chips, the documetnation witht he bogomips package will give that. For the K6 series is is approximately 2*clock speed. My K6-2-350 give s a bogomips of about 700. The Pentium gives a muchslower number, about = the clock rate. At least that is true for the Pentium 266 I'm on right now. Bogomips = 267. Probably means the s... hot risc inside the K6 loops real fast compared to the cisc Pentium. Believe it or not: The Pentium is a risc processor so far as the small instructions. The internal architecture is exactly RISC. The multicycle instructions are, as you suggest, CISC. There is an array of hidden registers in the chip that are used in exactlty the same way a RISC programmer uses registers. I do not know how the K6 is constructed. I must find out. --David David Teague, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Because software support is free, timely, useful, technically accurate, and friendly. (Thanks guys!)
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
My cyrix P166+ (a 133 Mhz CPU) displays : Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 132.00 BogoMips On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. Does anybody have any ideias? -- Pedro Guerreiro (aka digito)([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Diplomacy: the art of letting someone have your own way. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- // -oOo- -oOo ---oOo--\\ | Sami Dalouche | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM : linhax| | 01.34.83.16.76 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ : 25529539 | \\ -oOo- -oOo ---oOo--//
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
Subject: Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166? Date: Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 02:44:45PM -0700 In reply to:bradleyb Quoting bradleyb([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My p75 here at work is 23 bogo mips. So a 150 would be around 50 - 60. My p75 has 29 bogoMips, you might want to check your configuration. Since we're on the subject, I also have an AMD 486DX4-100 - with about 50 BogoMips. the problem is, it's far slower to use than my p75. I know that comparing bogoMips values isn't an entirely accurate way to compare speeds for different processor types, but is this normal? Thanks, Brad Cyrix 166MX got 149.5 Bogomips on 2.0.20-2.0.36 on Slackware but on Debian it was about 130. Same Hardware, different partition. When I went to the 2.2.x Kernel Debian met Slackware, Bogomips now 149.5 on both. (??) Slackware was/is libc5. The answer, well the only difference I see is the Bogomips number, compile times haven't changed on either system. Now I don't even look at it anymore. -- In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages. ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What are the Bogomips for a P166?
Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. Does anybody have any ideias? -- Pedro Guerreiro (aka digito)([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Diplomacy: the art of letting someone have your own way.
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. My p75 here at work is 23 bogo mips. So a 150 would be around 50 - 60. One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. Mayhaps the monitor settings are over worked?
RE: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
I get the same number with my P5 166s. Is your 225 a P-Pro? They changed something (I can't remember off hand, I want to say bus size) and that could account for the difference. Can't think of anything for the X problem tho'. --Dano -Original Message- From: Pedro Guerreiro [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 24, 1999 6:43 AM To: Debian User Subject: What are the Bogomips for a P166? Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. Does anybody have any ideias? -- Pedro Guerreiro (aka digito)([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Diplomacy: the art of letting someone have your own way. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
Quoting Dan Willard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I get the same number with my P5 166s. Is your 225 a P-Pro? They changed something (I can't remember off hand, I want to say bus size) and that could account for the difference. It does depend on what kernel you're running. These are all from the same box booting up at different times: pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory structure at 0x000f6b50 pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory entry at 0xfd7e1 pcibios_init : PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xfda9df Probing PCI hardware. Warning : Unknown PCI device (8086:7100). Please read include/linux/pci.h Warning : Unknown PCI device (8086:7110). Please read include/linux/pci.h Warning : Unknown PCI device (8086:7111). Please read include/linux/pci.h Warning : Unknown PCI device (8086:7112). Please read include/linux/pci.h Warning : Unknown PCI device (8086:7113). Please read include/linux/pci.h Warning : Unknown PCI device (1000:f). Please read include/linux/pci.h Warning : Unknown PCI device (1002:4755). Please read include/linux/pci.h Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 331.78 BogoMIPS Memory: 30440k/32768k available (984k kernel code, 384k reserved, 960k data) Swansea University Computer Society NET3.035 for Linux 2.0 NET3: Unix domain sockets 0.13 for Linux NET3.035. Swansea University Computer Society TCP/IP for NET3.034 IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP VFS: Diskquotas version dquot_5.6.0 initialized Checking 386/387 coupling... Ok, fpu using exception 16 error reporting. Checking 'hlt' instruction... Ok. Linux version 2.0.29 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 2.7.2.2) #1 Mon May 26 09:25:51 EST 1997 pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory structure at 0x000f6b50 pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory entry at 0xfd7e1 pcibios_init : PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xfda9df Probing PCI hardware. Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 249.04 BogoMIPS Memory: 30264k/32768k available (1124k kernel code, 384k reserved, 996k data) Swansea University Computer Society NET3.035 for Linux 2.0 NET3: Unix domain sockets 0.13 for Linux NET3.035. Swansea University Computer Society TCP/IP for NET3.034 IP Protocols: IGMP, ICMP, UDP, TCP VFS: Diskquotas version dquot_5.6.0 initialized Checking 386/387 coupling... Ok, fpu using exception 16 error reporting. Checking 'hlt' instruction... Ok. Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled. alias mapping IDT readonly ... ... done Linux version 2.0.34 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 2.7.2.3) #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory structure at 0x000f6b50 pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory entry at 0xfd7e1 pcibios_init : PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xfda9df Probing PCI hardware. Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 331.78 BogoMIPS Memory: 30216k/32768k available (1136k kernel code, 384k reserved, 1032k data) Swansea University Computer Society NET3.035 for Linux 2.0 NET3: Unix domain sockets 0.13 for Linux NET3.035. Swansea University Computer Society TCP/IP for NET3.034 IP Protocols: IGMP, ICMP, UDP, TCP VFS: Diskquotas version dquot_5.6.0 initialized Checking 386/387 coupling... Ok, fpu using exception 16 error reporting. Checking 'hlt' instruction... Ok. Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled. alias mapping IDT readonly ... ... done Linux version 2.0.36 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 2.7.2.3) #2 Sun Feb 21 15:55:27 EST 1999 From: Pedro Guerreiro [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. Does anybody have any ideias? Try running a different version of the X server? The quick way is to juggle the binary /usr/X11R6/bin/XF86_foobar rather than trying to find Debian packages. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
Subject: RE: What are the Bogomips for a P166? Date: Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 12:13:00PM -0400 In reply to:Dan Willard Quoting Dan Willard([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I get the same number with my P5 166s. Is your 225 a P-Pro? They changed something (I can't remember off hand, I want to say bus size) and that could account for the difference. Can't think of anything for the X problem tho'. --Dano -Original Message- From: Pedro Guerreiro [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 24, 1999 6:43 AM To: Debian User Subject:What are the Bogomips for a P166? Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. ~# uname -a Linux mtntop 2.2.6 #21 Thu Apr 22 14:03:47 EDT 1999 i686 unknown cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : CyrixInstead cpu family : 6 model : 1 model name : 6x86MX 2.5x Core/Bus Clock stepping: 3 cpu MHz : 150.065540 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr cx8 cmov mmx bogomips: 149.50 HTH -- Micro Credo: Never trust a computer bigger than you can lift. ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. The Pentium and Pentium MMX cannot be compared directly (or any other different chip families, for that matter). Actually, both look about right. According to the BogoMips mini-HOWTO: Intel Pentium clock * 0.40 Pentium MMX clock * 2.00 Bob -- Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:14:46 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pedro Guerreiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166? Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:08:14 + Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; Hi. I'm having a problem with a machine in the lab. It's a Pentium 166 with 32Mb, but the reported Bogomips are just 66.??. Somehow, this doesn't look to normal to me, since my Pentium 225 MMX is giving 447.?? Bogomips. My p75 here at work is 23 bogo mips. So a 150 would be around 50 - 60. One other thing is that since I've upgraded to Slink on that machine, X became unusable, since each time it needs to redisplay some part (or all) of the screen, I can actually see it redraw _each_ line, taking about 1 minute to redisplay the screen. from Bogomips mini-HOWTO: As a very approximate guide, the BogoMips can be calculated by: System BogoMips Comparison Intel 8088 clock * (0.004 plusminus 0.001)0.02 Intel/AMD 386SXclock * (0.14 plusminus 0.01) 0.8 Intel/AMD 386DXclock * (0.18 plusminus 0.01) 1(definition) Motorola 68030 clock * (0.25 plusminus 0.005)1.4 Cyrix/IBM 486 clock * (0.34 plusminus 0.065)1.8 Intel Pentium clock * (0.40 plusminus 0.035)2.2 Intel 486/AMD 5x86 clock * (0.50 plusminus 0.01) 2.8 Mips R4000/R4400 clock * (0.50 plusminus 0.015)2.3 Nexgen Nx586 clock * (0.75 plusminus 0.010)4.2 PowerPC 601clock * (0.84 plusminus 0.015)4.7 Alpha (all CPUs) clock * (0.99 plusminus 0.005)5.5 Intel Pentium Pro clock * (0.99 plusminus 0.005)5.5 Cyrix 5x86/6x86clock * (1.00 plusminus 0.005)5.6 Intel Pentium II clock * (1.00) 5.6 Mips R4600 clock * (1.00) 5.6 Alpha 21264clock * (1.99)11.1 AMD K5/K6 clock * (2.00 plusminus 0.010) 11.1 Pentium MMXclock * (2.00)11.1 Motorola 68060 clock * (2.01)11.2 66 for p166 and 447 for p225mmx seems to be fine OK
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My p75 here at work is 23 bogo mips. So a 150 would be around 50 - 60. My p75 has 29 bogoMips, you might want to check your configuration. Since we're on the subject, I also have an AMD 486DX4-100 - with about 50 BogoMips. the problem is, it's far slower to use than my p75. I know that comparing bogoMips values isn't an entirely accurate way to compare speeds for different processor types, but is this normal? Thanks, Brad
Re: What are the Bogomips for a P166?
Pedro, You should really ignore the BogoMIPS rating. It doesn't make any sense. On my dual 90MHz Pentium, I get 72 BogoMIPS. On my notebook computer running a 200MHz MMX Pentium, I get 399 BogoMIPS. And on my 300 MHz Pentium II, I get 307 BogoMIPS. It makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, there is virtually no speed difference between my 200 MHz Pentium MMX notebook and my dual 90MHz workstation. Allen -- Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
Bogomips disparity
I'll be looking for some docs to explain this, but in the meantime perhaps someone knows off the top . . . Just screwed together a couple of new boxes. AMD K6/2-350 CPUs. The kernel on the slink rescue disk (2.1.8) as well as the kernel installed as slink:kernel-image-2.0.36 both report ~350 bogomips. The kernel on Tom's Root Boot Disk reports ~700 bogomips. We're talking 2.0.36 in all cases. Any ideas? -- your man pann
Re: Bogomips disparity
I remember this being discussed a month or so ago. You might take a look at the User's archives at, http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/ Good luck, Kent Pann McCuaig wrote: I'll be looking for some docs to explain this, but in the meantime perhaps someone knows off the top . . . Just screwed together a couple of new boxes. AMD K6/2-350 CPUs. The kernel on the slink rescue disk (2.1.8) as well as the kernel installed as slink:kernel-image-2.0.36 both report ~350 bogomips. The kernel on Tom's Root Boot Disk reports ~700 bogomips. We're talking 2.0.36 in all cases. Any ideas? -- your man pann -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
Hi! On 19-Jan-99, Peter Bartosch took time to write : bogomips should only depend on hardware no ? only on cpu (and clock) that's what i thought too, but it doesn't seem true in my case as with exactly the same hardware and no change in bios i have 700 bogomips with kernel 2.2.0pre7 and 350bogomips with kernel 2.0.36 compiled either as 586 or as 686 they are all compiled with same options (as much as possible) i've read somewhere, that this lies on the size of the cpu's cache (1st level) this is IIRC in K6-chips twice as big as in pentiums, but if i think over it this couldn't be true/realistic until next mail B-) Peter -- :~~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~: : student of technical computer science : : university of applied sciences krefeld (germany) : ~~ FD314F21 C7 AE 2F 28 C1 33 71 77 0D 77 CD 6E 58 E9 06 6B
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Peter Bartosch wrote: On 19-Jan-99, Peter Bartosch took time to write : bogomips should only depend on hardware no ? only on cpu (and clock) that's what i thought too, but it doesn't seem true in my case as with exactly the same hardware and no change in bios i have 700 bogomips with kernel 2.2.0pre7 and 350bogomips with kernel 2.0.36 compiled either as 586 or as 686 they are all compiled with same options (as much as possible) i've read somewhere, that this lies on the size of the cpu's cache (1st level) this is IIRC in K6-chips twice as big as in pentiums, but if i think over it this couldn't be true/realistic Actually, the main critique of the real MIPS calculation is that it is cache-dependent because it is a small loop. While I know nothing of the bogomips calculation, I assume it's similar. The problem is that the entire piece of code that calculates this fits inside the cache. Pentiums (and MMX) came standard w/ 512k, so I doubt the loop would be bigger than that, so I don't think doubling the cache size would help any. (Just celerons would really get bad numbers) :) -Dan
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On 19-Jan-99, Peter Bartosch took time to write : bogomips should only depend on hardware no ? only on cpu (and clock) that's what i thought too, but it doesn't seem true in my case as with exactly the same hardware and no change in bios i have 700 bogomips with kernel 2.2.0pre7 and 350bogomips with kernel 2.0.36 compiled either as 586 or as 686 they are all compiled with same options (as much as possible) Patrick
Re: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Thanks all for your input. The problem is solved in a way. Before mucking with hardware i tried few software things. With 2.0.36 compiled as 686 and as 586 i had only 350Bogomips with a 350MHz K6-2 BUT (!) with 2.2.0pre7 compiled with CONFIG_M586TSC=y i have my full 700 bogomips ! with it /proc/cpuinfo shows everything right (CPU clock,etc...) That's strange isn't it ? Probably a strange compilation quirk somewhere I'll stick with 2.0.36 for now (as 350Bogomips should be enough to serve only few web pages), but i will wait anxiously to 2.2.0 final Patrick -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null i've not messed around with BogoMIPS really, but i do have one question. your BogoMIPS count went up dramatically, but did it really feel like you had a performance increase? if so, why switch back? if not, why care about them unless it was just idle curiosity? -James Pollard
[Fwd: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)]
---BeginMessage--- James Pollard wrote: Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Thanks all for your input. The problem is solved in a way. Before mucking with hardware i tried few software things. With 2.0.36 compiled as 686 and as 586 i had only 350Bogomips with a 350MHz K6-2 BUT (!) with 2.2.0pre7 compiled with CONFIG_M586TSC=y i have my full 700 bogomips ! with it /proc/cpuinfo shows everything right (CPU clock,etc...) That's strange isn't it ? Probably a strange compilation quirk somewhere I'll stick with 2.0.36 for now (as 350Bogomips should be enough to serve only few web pages), but i will wait anxiously to 2.2.0 final Patrick -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null The speed-up might be caused by an improved hardware-level loop-function which has been used in time-sensitive code. Maybe the new kernel handles tha piece wrongly. The problem is known that i.e Borland Pascal programs crash on any AMD K6 =350Mhz and that the mouse pointer get weird in Win98 due to this incompatible timer fucntion. something might be found on heise.de in the c't archive (or current heise-register). Btw.: Has there BEEN any speed-up? I don't think so !? ---End Message---
Re: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
On 19-Jan-99, James Pollard took time to write : i've not messed around with BogoMIPS really, but i do have one question. your BogoMIPS count went up dramatically, but did it really feel like you had a performance increase? if so, why switch back? if not, why care about them unless it was just idle curiosity? to feel a performance increase : yes ! i'm running distributed.net clients and the rates went up. however i'm not sure since i've change the clients also at the same time :-( otherwise the box is primary the home of www.patoche.org (with LTT, and so...) so the box is not heavily used... so i can't see a real difference. i care because i'm sort of an unlucky guy : if there is a bad hardware it's for me. previously i had a bad disk, and a bad motherboard. with this new computer (2 weeks old) i already had some memory chips problem (as it seems a manufacturer produced memory chips which were not running at all with K6 chips) so when i saw this problem, i first thought i had an hardware problem... so i just wanted to be sure that the computer is ok... right now i don't crave for performance, so i switched back. does that enlighten ? Patrick /\//\/\/\\/\/\//\/\\/\/\\/\\/\//\/\\/\//\/\\/\//\/\\/\//\/\\ Patrick M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.patoche.org/
Re: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
On 18-Jan-99, Tino Schwarze took time to write : REMEMBER: BogoMIPS, are bogus only - they DO NOT tell you anything about your processors real performance. So, I guess, the calibration loop used but they at least tell you if you have something badly misconfigured for calculation BogoMIPS is somehow broken if you compile 2.0.36 for 686 instead of 586 (as advised in Help to Processor type). i compiled 2.0.36 as 686 and as 586 and that didn't make any differences with bogomips. Patrick
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
Hi!
i have :
processor : 0
cpu : 586
model : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
stepping: M difference !!! what is it ?
it's a production-revision!
higher stepping - newer cpu because of newer production-masks (and hopefully
with less errors)
i have two 64Mo chips 100MHz coming from different manufacturers (could that
be the cause ?)
will bogomips change if memory changes ?
no it won't, bogomips depend only on your cpu (-registers)
I have found in the past on a couple of occasions I have had ludicrously
low bogomips figures and have re-compiled the kernel (not even changing
the settings!) and the rate has gone up the next time i have re-booted.
Only ever happened with a RedHat system - don't know why.
isn't that strange ?
don't worry about it, bogomips are bogus, they don't say anything since the
bogomips are equal to your clock frequency (or to the double clock freq with
some (all) K6)
maybe them could be used as comparision-argument, but this was in pre P5 times
bogomips should only depend on hardware no ?
only on cpu (and clock)
just my 0.02 euro
until next mail ;)
Peter
--
:~~~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~:
: student of technical computer science:
: university of applied sciences krefeld (germany) :
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I think i have a problem with one of my new K6-2 box. I have two boxes : same motherboard (ASUS P5A) , same amount of memory (128Mo). Same output of /proc/cpuinfo for both *except* for bogomips. One is a 350MHz and it gives me ~350 Bogomips the other is a 400MHz and it gives me ~800 Bogomips I think there is a problem. What do you think ? What should i check first ? Interesting. I too am using a K6-2. My /proc/cpuinfo reads: processor : 0 cpu : 586 model : 8 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD stepping: unknown fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid : yes wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx bogomips: 699.60 My motherboard is an AOpen AX59Pro. I'm not over-clocked however. I'm also using the kernel I installed with too. -- __ _ Mark Wagnon -o) / / (_)__ __ __ Chula Vista, CA /\\/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 11:13:41AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think i have a problem with one of my new K6-2 box. I have two boxes : same motherboard (ASUS P5A) , same amount of memory (128Mo). Same output of /proc/cpuinfo for both *except* for bogomips. One is a 350MHz and it gives me ~350 Bogomips the other is a 400MHz and it gives me ~800 Bogomips I think there is a problem. What do you think ? I just bought a P5A and 350MHz K6-2 last week. I get almost exactly 700 bogomips (699 or 701 or so). Make sure the bus speed is 100MHz and that cache is all turned on in the BIOS. What does /proc/cpuinfo say about the CPU clock? (Only in Linux 2.1 2.2). Nice system, wish I had faster disks to match it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
Thanks all for your input. The problem is solved in a way. Before mucking with hardware i tried few software things. With 2.0.36 compiled as 686 and as 586 i had only 350Bogomips with a 350MHz K6-2 BUT (!) with 2.2.0pre7 compiled with CONFIG_M586TSC=y i have my full 700 bogomips ! with it /proc/cpuinfo shows everything right (CPU clock,etc...) That's strange isn't it ? Probably a strange compilation quirk somewhere I'll stick with 2.0.36 for now (as 350Bogomips should be enough to serve only few web pages), but i will wait anxiously to 2.2.0 final Patrick
Re: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
Hi Patrick, With 2.0.36 compiled as 686 and as 586 i had only 350Bogomips with a 350MHz K6-2 BUT (!) with 2.2.0pre7 compiled with CONFIG_M586TSC=y i have my full 700 bogomips ! with it /proc/cpuinfo shows everything right (CPU clock,etc...) That's strange isn't it ? Probably a strange compilation quirk somewhere I'll stick with 2.0.36 for now (as 350Bogomips should be enough to serve only few web pages), but i will wait anxiously to 2.2.0 final REMEMBER: BogoMIPS, are bogus only - they DO NOT tell you anything about your processors real performance. So, I guess, the calibration loop used for calculation BogoMIPS is somehow broken if you compile 2.0.36 for 686 instead of 586 (as advised in Help to Processor type). You probably haven't lost any performance (apart from possible speedups 2.2.0 might bring along). Bye, Tino.
Re: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
Tino Schwarze wrote: REMEMBER: BogoMIPS, are bogus only - they DO NOT tell you anything about your processors real performance. So, I guess, the calibration loop used for calculation BogoMIPS is somehow broken if you compile 2.0.36 for 686 instead of 586 (as advised in Help to Processor type). Would you happen to know of any Linux benchmarking utilities that will measure a system's ability to perform various tasks so I and others may get a better indication of our system's performance? TIA mark
Re: AMD-K6 Bogomips problem solved (sort of)
Mark Wagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: REMEMBER: BogoMIPS, are bogus only - they DO NOT tell you anything about your processors real performance. Would you happen to know of any Linux benchmarking utilities that will measure a system's ability to perform various tasks so I and others may get a better indication of our system's performance? Well, the traditional 'casual' benchmark is the time used for compiling a kernel (with some given configuration). This is more reliable than bogomips since it measures a real, useful, computation -- but of course it may match more or less well your usual mixture of dependency on cpu/disk/RAM performance. -- Henning Makholm http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
Hi, I think i have a problem with one of my new K6-2 box. I have two boxes : same motherboard (ASUS P5A) , same amount of memory (128Mo). Same output of /proc/cpuinfo for both *except* for bogomips. One is a 350MHz and it gives me ~350 Bogomips the other is a 400MHz and it gives me ~800 Bogomips I think there is a problem. What do you think ? What should i check first ? Thanks for your help Patrick
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 11:13:41AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One is a 350MHz and it gives me ~350 Bogomips the other is a 400MHz and it gives me ~800 Bogomips I think there is a problem. What do you think ? No. What should i check first ? Read the Bogomips mini-Howto. /usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/BogoMips.gz Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On 17-Jan-99, Marcus Brinkmann took time to write : One is a 350MHz and it gives me ~350 Bogomips the other is a 400MHz and it gives me ~800 Bogomips I think there is a problem. What do you think ? No. i think there is, see below What should i check first ? Read the Bogomips mini-Howto. /usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/BogoMips.gz besides the fact it seems outdated (1997-12-13), it says like me: AMD K5/K6 clock * (2.00 plusminus 0.010) 11.1 and it lists K6 at 166Mhz having already ~330Bogomips ! so my AMD K6-2 at 350Mhz should have 700Bogomips isn't it ? so next part of my question: what should i check ? bios settings ? (the howto is not precise enough imho) Patrick
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 03:34:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: besides the fact it seems outdated (1997-12-13), it says like me: AMD K5/K6 clock * (2.00 plusminus 0.010) 11.1 and it lists K6 at 166Mhz having already ~330Bogomips ! so my AMD K6-2 at 350Mhz should have 700Bogomips isn't it ? I don't know what -2 means at K6-2. so next part of my question: what should i check ? bios settings ? (the howto is not precise enough imho) Quote from the howto: Many CPUs are prone to faulty setups of · memory cache setting (write-back is wrong for BogoMips, often reported lower than 5; write-through is ok) · turbo-buttons (should be ON) · BIOS-software emulated fake cache (change it for real cache) · similar cache and clock related things. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: besides the fact it seems outdated (1997-12-13), it says like me: AMD K5/K6 clock * (2.00 plusminus 0.010) 11.1 and it lists K6 at 166Mhz having already ~330Bogomips ! so my AMD K6-2 at 350Mhz should have 700Bogomips isn't it ? so next part of my question: what should i check ? bios settings ? (the howto is not precise enough imho) I think I would be concerned too. I have an AMD K6-2 3D 350 MHz processor, overclocked to 400MHz and I get the following from cat /proc/cpuinfo: processor : 0 cpu : 586 model : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor vendor_id : AuthenticAMD stepping: A fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid : yes wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 syscr mmx 3dnow bogomips: 801.18 Sorry if I state the obvious, but you are running at 3.5 x 100 MHz? You do have 100 MHz memory? I have found in the past on a couple of occasions I have had ludicrously low bogomips figures and have re-compiled the kernel (not even changing the settings!) and the rate has gone up the next time i have re-booted. Only ever happened with a RedHat system - don't know why. What kernel are you using? There are a couple of AMD K6-2 patches around. -- Phillip Deackes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian Linux v.2.0
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On 17-Jan-99, Marcus Brinkmann took time to write : On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 03:34:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: besides the fact it seems outdated (1997-12-13), it says like me: AMD K5/K6 clock * (2.00 plusminus 0.010) 11.1 and it lists K6 at 166Mhz having already ~330Bogomips ! so my AMD K6-2 at 350Mhz should have 700Bogomips isn't it ? I don't know what -2 means at K6-2. it's the new generation of K6 chips. also known as K6-3D so next part of my question: what should i check ? bios settings ? (the howto is not precise enough imho) Quote from the howto: Many CPUs are prone to faulty setups of · memory cache setting (write-back is wrong for BogoMips, often reported lower than 5; write-through is ok) less than clear to me · turbo-buttons (should be ON) in these days i rarely found units with turbo buttons anymore · BIOS-software emulated fake cache (change it for real cache) · similar cache and clock related things. yeah... but 'similar' doesn't tell me where to start searching... Thanks for your help, but besides the bios to check - and i'm not very optimistic with that, will see tomorrow - , i don't see anything to do... bad ! Patrick
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On 17-Jan-99, Phillip Deackes took time to write : so my AMD K6-2 at 350Mhz should have 700Bogomips isn't it ? I think I would be concerned too. I have an AMD K6-2 3D 350 MHz I am ! processor, overclocked to 400MHz and I get the following from cat /proc/cpuinfo: processor : 0 cpu : 586 model : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor vendor_id : AuthenticAMD stepping: A fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid : yes wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 syscr mmx 3dnow bogomips: 801.18 i have : processor : 0 cpu : 586 model : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor vendor_id : AuthenticAMD stepping: M difference !!! what is it ? fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid : yes wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 syscr pge mmx 3dnow ^^^ difference ! what's that ? bogomips: 350.62 i will try to read the kernel sources if i understand anything... but i someone knows about these things... Sorry if I state the obvious, but you are running at 3.5 x 100 MHz? You ^ i have to check tomorrow directly on the main board (is that what you think : multiplier and bus frequency) do have 100 MHz memory? i have two 64Mo chips 100MHz coming from different manufacturers (could that be the cause ?) will bogomips change if memory changes ? I have found in the past on a couple of occasions I have had ludicrously low bogomips figures and have re-compiled the kernel (not even changing the settings!) and the rate has gone up the next time i have re-booted. Only ever happened with a RedHat system - don't know why. isn't that strange ? bogomips should only depend on hardware no ? What kernel are you using? There are a couple of AMD K6-2 patches around. 2.0.36 without any patch i can think of. otherwise the 'compile as [386/486/Pentium/PentiumPro]' option in kernel compilation could change the bogomips rating or not ? i compiled it as a 686. should i compile it as a 586 ? Patrick
Re: AMD K6-2 / Bogomips problem
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: otherwise the 'compile as [386/486/Pentium/PentiumPro]' option in kernel compilation could change the bogomips rating or not ? i compiled it as a 686. should i compile it as a 586 ? From Configure.help: - Pentium for the AMD K5, K6 and K6-3D, Cyrix MediaGX, Cyrix/IBM/National Semiconductor 6x86 and GXm, IDT Centaur WinChip C6, and Intel Pentium/Pentium MMX - PPro for the Cyrix/IBM/National Semiconductor 6x86MX, MII and Intel Pentium II/Pentium Pro I don't know if it would affect bogomips, but it might be worth a try. Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Re: bogomips
Subject: Re: bogomips Date: Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 12:56:21AM +0100 In reply to:Martin Bialasinski Quoting Martin Bialasinski([EMAIL PROTECTED]): w == wtopa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: w Yes that would seem about right. The problem I have is that my w 166MMX gives me 149.9 BogoMips on my Slackware partition and only w 130.6 on my Debian partition. Same hardware (same box). Same kernelversion? The bogomips implementation changes sometimes. Yes. 2.0.34/35 on Slackware 149.9. On debian 2.0.34 120 Bogomips and on 2.0.35 130.6. The .config's on both dists are the same as well. Interesting, isn't it. NOT! I am confused by the change in Debian kernels. On Slackware I have gone from 2.0.30 - 35 with no change at all, allways 149.9. I did note that on Slackware 3.5 (just installed) on a scsi drive on sba1, kernel 2.1.127 gets 149.5. This is the first run on that kernel and I have a bunch of new stuff compiled into the kernel, so that _may_ account for the change. Would appreciate it if anyone could give me some reason for the difference in the Debian kernel. Wayne Ciao, Martin -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue. ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bogomips
- w Yes that would seem about right. The problem I have is that my - w 166MMX gives me 149.9 BogoMips on my Slackware partition and only - w 130.6 on my Debian partition. Same hardware (same box). - - Same kernelversion? The bogomips implementation changes sometimes. - - Yes. 2.0.34/35 on Slackware 149.9. On debian 2.0.34 120 Bogomips and - on 2.0.35 130.6. The .config's on both dists are the same as well. - Interesting, isn't it. NOT! I am confused by the change in Debian - kernels. On Slackware I have gone from 2.0.30 - 35 with no change at - all, allways 149.9. I did note that on Slackware 3.5 (just installed) - on a scsi drive on sba1, kernel 2.1.127 gets 149.5. This is the first - run on that kernel and I have a bunch of new stuff compiled into the - kernel, so that _may_ account for the change. get kernel source and recompile it; do kernels say other number by booting or by runnning bogomips command ? does someone apply any patches to kernels used by debian ? -- Matus fantomas Uhlar, sysadmin at NETLAB+ Kosice, Slovakia BIC coord for *.sk; admin of netlab.irc.sk; co-admin of irc.felk.cvut.cz
Re: bogomips
Subject: Re: bogomips Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 07:27:12AM -0600 I remember back in '98 when [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. 2.0.34/35 on Slackware 149.9. On debian 2.0.34 120 Bogomips and on 2.0.35 130.6. The .config's on both dists are the same as well. Interesting, isn't it. NOT! ... Would appreciate it if anyone could give me some reason for the difference in the Debian kernel. As someone mentioned, it could be that there are some patches in the Debian kernel, not in the slackware. Realize that Bogomips are really sensative to alignment in memory, if the loop is in the wrong place it could change the numbers. Also you could be using different versions of the C compiler on the different machines. try typing gcc --version on both. gcc 2.7.2.x is the official compiler for the linux kernel, at least in Linus' mind. There have been on-and-off report of breakage with gcc 2.8.x and (especially) egcc. Go look on linux-kernel for anything by Linux with egcc in the subject line for more info.. Matt Matt may have found the link. I just went to the 3 dists and got the following: Debian slink %gcc --version gcc 2.7.2.3 Slackware 3.3 %gcc --version gcc-2.7.2.2 Slackware 3.5 %gcc --version egcs-2.9.29 980515 egcs 1.0.3 NOTE: Debian uses glibc while Slackware is still using libc. So I got the source for gcc-2.7.2.3 and compiled it for the Slack3.3 dist. (Yea, I know, I have too much spare time!) I installed the new version (%gcc --version gcc-2.7.2.3 ), and recompilied linux-2.0.35. and rebooted. Slackware _again_ reports BogoMips at 149.91, now with kernel compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. So that doesn't look like it is/was the cause. Now I will take the kernel source from ftp.kernel.org for 2.0.35 and compile it on Debian with make dep,clean and zImage, make a boot floppy and see if that changes anything. No, it didn't. Debian still says that BogoMips = 130.66. So that leads me to believe the kernel-source.deb files are ok, so is gcc-2.7.2.3. Leaves glibc. That I will not change! OK, someone said that the BogoMips are meaningless. It just might be that he is correct. I have just noticed something I hadn't found before. I have saytime running in cron and it reports the time on the hour. On Slackware (149.91 Bogomips) the time is the hour and 1 sec, on Debian (130.66 BogoMips) the time is the hour exactly! Well I had fun tracking this down but, to me anyway, BogoMips is a nice number but I won't lose any sleep over differences between distributions. Hope this answers my question? Or does it??? Wayne -- /* Matt Sayler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- atwork?astronomy:cs http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mpsayler -- (512)471-7450 Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? */ -- If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage. But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and none dare criticize it. ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bogomips
w == wtopa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: w Yes that would seem about right. The problem I have is that my w 166MMX gives me 149.9 BogoMips on my Slackware partition and only w 130.6 on my Debian partition. Same hardware (same box). Same kernelversion? The bogomips implementation changes sometimes. Ciao, Martin
Re: bogomips
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Oz Dror wrote: Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? SWAG (Silly Wild-Assed Guess): The memory is the same speed? Since Intel guesses wrong in the branch prediction, it must refetch the instruction residing at the address of the result of the branch from cache. The bottleneck is not CPU speed, it is the cache RAM. In other words, the CPU is sees a branch instruction coming and assumes that the resulting target of the branch will be ahead ... it does not expect that someone is going to be running a tight loop. It never even looks for that since it is so rare in real life. As a result, the next instruction is not in its prefetch store and it has to go out to external cache to get it ... again and again and again. The memory is not the same. the P-II has 256M dimm (8nsec), the P-I MMX has 128MB EDO (60nsec) -Oz -- NAME Oz Dror, Los Angeles, California EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux since 8/15/94 PHONE Fax (310) 474-3126 -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: 2.6.2 mQBtAzA/tLQAAAEDAKUy/TEjQ/jiZ+9/WJb/+NHxqkvOxGZ3W/F2JCNm5v5ZTZz+ BVZC9GM/I+plQ8xz+7B+KhDSVax8gxNTAkJ+I7P/zAP2ZDMwVf4lq5ZFxMJC+7c7 ET+hNtmQUt8vCVR8hQAFEbQZT3ogRHJvciA8ZHJvckBuZXRjb20uY29tPg== =EU23 -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
bogomips
Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? -- NAME Oz Dror, Los Angeles, California EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux since 8/15/94 PHONE Fax (310) 474-3126
Re: bogomips
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Oz Dror wrote: Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? Because bogomips are bogus and meaningless? Andrew Tarr If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate |___ http://multinet.co.nz/personalhomepages/locusmeus/antechamber.html |~~~
Re: bogomips
On Tue, Nov 10, 1998 at 10:24:46PM -0800, Oz Dror wrote: Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? MMX doubles your bogomips. MMX CPUs are evidently great at running empty loops. miket
Re: bogomips
On Tue, Nov 10, 1998 at 10:24:46PM -0800, Oz Dror wrote: Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? MMX doubles your bogomips. MMX CPUs are evidently great at running empty loops. Every Pentium II has MMX. Anyway, for 166 and 300 MHz PII's I have seen a bogomips value that approximately equals the MHz number. So that seems OK. HTH, Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054
Re: bogomips
i'm running a 2.0.33 kernel from the installation disks and it gives me 400.59 Bogomips for a pentium 200MMX running on a compaq laptop. I recompiled the kernel and it gave me about 208 bogomips after the new kernel was recompiled, and the bogomips mystery continued. btw, i did read the bogomips mini howto. just my lil contribution jd? On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 1998 at 10:24:46PM -0800, Oz Dror wrote: Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? MMX doubles your bogomips. MMX CPUs are evidently great at running empty loops. Every Pentium II has MMX. Anyway, for 166 and 300 MHz PII's I have seen a bogomips value that approximately equals the MHz number. So that seems OK. HTH, Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054 -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
bogomips
Hi, Just deleted the email from the guy who had 400 bogomips for his Pentium 200 MMX with the standard debian kernel, and only 200 after compiling his own. Could this be because of the CPU type for which the kernel is optimized? I'd figure that the standard kernel would be only optimized for 486, since pentium or pentium pro optimizations will prevent the kernel from running on 386 or 486 processors. Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054
Re: bogomips
Subject: Re: bogomips Date: Wed, Nov 11, 1998 at 01:19:22PM +0100 In reply to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Tue, Nov 10, 1998 at 10:24:46PM -0800, Oz Dror wrote: Hi I have a pentium-II 400Mhz and a pentium MMX 200Mhz both have 400.59 bogomips Why? MMX doubles your bogomips. MMX CPUs are evidently great at running empty loops. Every Pentium II has MMX. Anyway, for 166 and 300 MHz PII's I have seen a bogomips value that approximately equals the MHz number. So that seems OK. Yes that would seem about right. The problem I have is that my 166MMX gives me 149.9 BogoMips on my Slackware partition and only 130.6 on my Debian partition. Same hardware (same box). The numbers may be meaningless but I wonder why my Debian kernel runs slower! Slackware kernel made with the ole standby, make dep, clean, zImage. Debian with make-kpkg. I have tried different kernels on Slackware and the 149.9 stays the same. For different Debian kernels the numbers vary from 120 -130.6. Courious about why this should be. HTH, Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054 -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Software, n.: Formal evening attire for female computer analysts. ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Los bogoMIPS
Bueno, por ahi anda moviendose un bogomips-mini-howto. Cada maquina tiene un factor de multplicacion de su frecuencia en Mhz con el resultado son los bogomips. -- Enviado con Linux (Redhat 5.0) -- Ignacio Torres Masdeu [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Los bogoMIPS
Hola, al arrancar la máquina pone: [~/doc]$ dmesg|head Console: 16 point font, 400 scans Console: colour VGA+ 80x25, 1 virtual console (max 63) pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory structure at 0x000faa50 pcibios_init : BIOS32 Service Directory entry at 0xfaf10 pcibios_init : PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xfaf40 Probing PCI hardware. Calibrating delay loop.. ok - 466.94 BogoMIPS Memory: 31000k/32768k available (644k kernel code, 384k reserved, 740k data) Swansea University Computer Society NET3.035 for Linux 2.0 NET3: Unix domain sockets 0.13 for Linux NET3.035. [~/doc]$ Tengo un P233MMX, en vez de 466,94 BogoMIPS no debería dar unos 110-120? Un saludo, J. Parera
Re: Los bogoMIPS
On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, J.Parera wrote: Tengo un P233MMX, en vez de 466,94 BogoMIPS no debería dar unos 110-120? Lo que debes hacer es leer el BogoMIPS-HOWTO para empezar. -- 1392c0850d6f8a414000b59ae32fcb35 (a truly random sig)
Re: Lower bogomips in debian?
I have a Pentium-MMX 166MHz overclocked to 200MHz and I get 399.77. I believe 332.60 is the exact number I got to when I had it clocked at 166MHz. That definately is a weird problem you've got. FWIW, Chris none wrote: Hi, I just recently installed debian 2.0 on my pc at home and I just noticed something odd as I booted. Since I have started using debian it shows 249.04 bogomips whereas when I used to run slackware,redhat,suse it would show 332.60 bogomips. I know this probably isnt such a big deal but it struck me as being odd. I have built another kernel and it show the same 249.04 number, then I tried booting off a slackware 3.5 bootdisk I have and it reported the 332.60. Anyway just thought I would ask if there was some sort of reason of this inconsistency, other then that I am very pleased with debian 2.0. Oh by the way I am using a Pentium 166/MMX processor with 96MB RAM. Thanks! Eric -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Lower bogomips in debian?
Christopher Barry wrote: I have a Pentium-MMX 166MHz overclocked to 200MHz and I get 399.77. I believe 332.60 is the exact number I got to when I had it clocked at 166MHz. That definately is a weird problem you've got. FWIW, Chris none wrote: Hi, I just recently installed debian 2.0 on my pc at home and I just noticed something odd as I booted. Since I have started using debian it shows 249.04 bogomips whereas when I used to run slackware,redhat,suse it would show 332.60 bogomips. I know this probably isnt such a big deal but it struck me as being odd. I have built another kernel and it show the same 249.04 number, then I tried booting off a slackware 3.5 bootdisk I have and it reported the 332.60. Anyway just thought I would ask if there was some sort of reason of this inconsistency, other then that I am very pleased with debian 2.0. Oh by the way I am using a Pentium 166/MMX processor with 96MB RAM. Why does my Cyrix 200 M2 only get ~150? I thought that BogoMips were only a measure of integer performance. I guess the Bogo for bogus is right! Mark Panzer Thanks! Eric --
Re: Lower bogomips in debian?
The bogomips value you see at booting time depends only on the kernel, not on the distribution. Maybe that the bogomips calculation algorithm is changed from a kernel version to an other. And remember that the bogomips value is bogus ;) Michele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lower bogomips in debian?
Hi, I just recently installed debian 2.0 on my pc at home and I just noticed something odd as I booted. Since I have started using debian it shows 249.04 bogomips whereas when I used to run slackware,redhat,suse it would show 332.60 bogomips. I know this probably isnt such a big deal but it struck me as being odd. I have built another kernel and it show the same 249.04 number, then I tried booting off a slackware 3.5 bootdisk I have and it reported the 332.60. Anyway just thought I would ask if there was some sort of reason of this inconsistency, other then that I am very pleased with debian 2.0. Oh by the way I am using a Pentium 166/MMX processor with 96MB RAM. Thanks! Eric
Bogomips halved!
Hi, I am using a 200MHz K6, which I now overclocked at 233 MHz. After having done that, I checked the bogomips number, and I discovered in /var/log/messages that, after having been at 400 since ever (as expected, for a K6), it had dropped at 200 in the latest reboot and, after having overclocked it, went at 233. If I run the bogomips program, it gives 466, but /proc/cpuinfo still contains 233. How can it be? Could that be a source of problems for timings inside the kernel? Thanks for any info Francesco -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
