On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Matt Lashley/SCO wrote:
> Just in case anyone is interested --
>
> Though this initial focus of this comparison seemed geared toward S390
> Linux running in an LPAR and Linux on an x86, since I no longer have an
> S390 Linux LPAR I ran the test under a few different VM guest machines.
> The code I used is at the bottome of this note. (Copied from John's
> example.)
>
> What I found strange was that the fatsest times (posted under Results1)
> came off of the initial run. Subsequent runs were always slower. And,
> when I ran the code on all three machines at the same time (posted under
> Results2) the times increased fairly dramatically.
>
> Dear IBM - please come up with a way to level the trade-off between
> processing power of an IFL and its cache. I fear MTBF, throughput and
> white space won't be enough in the near future. The gap in TCO won't be as
> wide forever. You guys have worked miracles before...
>
>
> The system:
>
> 9672 G6 machine with a single IFL
> 1 gig of real mem (for the whole VM system)
> VM 4.3
> Ten concurrently running Linux guest machines
>
> Guest machine one:
>
> OS: SLES8
> Mem: 512M
> CPU Share: 2000 (relative)
> Heaviest app on the server: Domino 6.5 (not heavily used)
>
> Results1:
> tuxd1:~ # time ./perl_bench.perl
>
> real 0m14.014s
> user 0m14.010s
> sys 0m0.010s
>
Unfortunately (for me) I don't know where that machine sits in the
pecking-order, whether it's a high-end machine or a relative toy. I
guess, since you beat my emulation so well, that it's a high-end
machine.
But do remember I'd changed my benchmark to this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
#use integer;
$i = 0;
while ($i < 10000)
{
$j = 0;
while ($j < 10000)
{
++$j;
}
++$i;
}
skink:~#
Give it another run, uncommenting the "use integer" line. You will be so
glad you did;-)
--
Cheers
John.
Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at
http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
