On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:30:12 +0100 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:11:24 +0100 > > Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: > >> > >>> BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.1) > >> Off-topic: Who or what is the origin of the "wht" version? One of the > >> nice things about unixbench is that it hadn't changed from 1997, but now > >> most Linux variants use the -wht version that has completely different > >> baselines and results from the "normal" version? > > > > It's a version created for the website: webhostingtalk.com. > > > > It was created to have a stable and standard benchmark. > > Beautiful - they fiddled with the baselines but still managed not to see > the obvious problem in execl() call in the execl benchmark for 64-bit > platform. Or maybe they just don't care? It seems to me they use the software a lot and it serves their purposes. It's just a standardized version and run script that they use to evaluate web servers. -- shannon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Star Wars Moral Number 17: Teddy | ...but a planet of wookies would still bears are dangerous in herds. | have been a lot better. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
