>
> > time cat smalltebledefinition | psql database -> real0m0.306s
> > time psql -e database < smalltabledefinition -> real0m0.295s
> >
> > may this 0.009s help you ;-)
> In fact, no. But I try to find a method which keeps my sparc beeing
> faster than my PC, because I could have saved
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sparc/Solaris: 45s
> > Sparc/Linux:35s !! (We are really good, aren´t we?)
> > PC/Linux: 61s
>
> Gratulations
Thanks :).
> time cat smalltebledefinition | psql database -> real0m0.306s
> time psql -e database < smalltabledefinition
> Seems that there were not an optimal bs-default value on Sparc for
> this
> test. If I set bs explicitely this way I got:
>
> Sparc/Solaris: 45s
> Sparc/Linux:35s !! (We are really good, aren´t we?)
> PC/Linux: 61s
Gratulations
> By the way it would be of course interesting, how
Hello,
people might remember my question about the E250 server with slower
disk access than a usual PC which I testet by some dd copying. Now
I found a solution:
$ dd if=hd-test.filenof=hd-test.file.out bs=1024k
Seems that there were not an opti
Quoting my previous mail and adding the rest of my homework:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> > That's your homework for today. Tomorrow we'll get to advanced disk
> > performance considerations. ~:^)
> Sorry for beeing late in solving my homework but I left my place just
> after sen
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Andrew Sharp wrote:
> Several things. One, you left out a ton of information, as this
> could be the result of many, many things. Where to start?
>
> What kind of disk/controller for each machine/disk?
Hmm, I quote from my previous mail:
> > E250:
> > ...
> > 4x36 GB SCSI
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Andrew Sharp wrote:
> My point exactly: not only is tmpfs a notoriously slow filesystem to
Sorry what´s the difference between /tmp directory on / which has
the "default" filesystem I created while installing Solaris 8.
I really can´t understand why /tmp should be slow
AIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sparc has slow disk access
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:03:03 -0700
> Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Try the solaris test again, Binkey, and this time use a filesystem
> > > other than /tmp for the output. Try setting up a u
Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
>
> > Try the solaris test again, Binkey, and this time use a filesystem
> > other than /tmp for the output. Try setting up a ufs-log file
> > system and see if the performance doesn't exceed that of linux.
>
> I would think that Solaris tmpfs was faster than their file
> Try the solaris test again, Binkey, and this time use a filesystem
> other than /tmp for the output. Try setting up a ufs-log file
> system and see if the performance doesn't exceed that of linux.
I would think that Solaris tmpfs was faster than their filesystems since
it wont hit disk unless
Hi Ben,
> You don't use gcc-2.96 or gcc-3.0 for compiling sparc64 kernels. The
> package is egcs64. The 2.4.7 Debian kernels should be pretty recent, if
> you are still not comfortable compiling them.
Linus has not taken the cache flush avoidance patches yet, it could give
a noticable differenc
Several things. One, you left out a ton of information, as this
could be the result of many, many things. Where to start?
What kind of disk/controller for each machine/disk?
What is the results you get from running bonnie?
Can you give the output of hdparm for each disk?
Also notice the the x
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:26:19PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> > It would be worth upgrading the ultra to a recent 2.4 kernel from
> > http://vger.samba.org. I found a > 10% improvement in some IO benchmarks
> Are there any patches applied? I jus
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> It would be worth upgrading the ultra to a recent 2.4 kernel from
> http://vger.samba.org. I found a > 10% improvement in some IO benchmarks
Are there any patches applied? I just think about using
kernel-image-2.4.7 (or higher) from the Debian mirror.
Hi,
> That?s not good for the Sparc machine (and even worse for Solaris by the way
> but this is of less interest because the machine should run under Linux).
>
> Any hint if there some optimisations could be done?
It would be worth upgrading the ultra to a recent 2.4 kernel from
http://vger.s
Hello,
I´ve got a Sparc E250 server and I´m runing Debian GNU/Linux on it.
I now started to make some performance comparisons against a default PC.
Here are the configurations I used:
E250:
~> cat /proc/cpuinfo
cpu : TI UltraSparc II (BlackBird)
fpu : UltraSparc II
16 matches
Mail list logo
