On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Eric Anderson wrote:
[ ... ]
Dunno. I was merely trying to keep things honest, since what was
communicated (whether intended or not) was that a C3 isn't modern,
and is akin to a Pentium, which it isn't.
I've got a VIA C3 Samuel myself, and it is fine for what it
On 03/09/07 12:55, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Eric Anderson wrote:
[ ... ]
Dunno. I was merely trying to keep things honest, since what was
communicated (whether intended or not) was that a C3 isn't modern,
and is akin to a Pentium, which it isn't.
I've got a VIA C3
On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Eric Anderson wrote:
I've got a VIA C3 Samuel myself, and it is fine for what it is,
which is a low-power clone of the Pentium-MMX in terms of
capabilities; the newer C3 Nehemiah is roughly comparable to a
P2, plus SSE and the extra AES/RNG crypto stuff. Look
Fluffles wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
Fluffles wrote:
If you use dd on the raw device (meaning no UFS/VFS) there is no
read-ahead. This means that the following DD-command will give lower STR
read than the second:
no read-ahead:
dd if=/dev/mirror/data of=/dev/null bs=1m count=1000
Fluffles wrote:
gstripe (4 disks on nVidia controller [Embedded], 128KB stripesize, Test
System 1)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DD benchmark(1GB) Results in MB/s avg
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4k
Eric Anderson wrote:
On 03/07/07 23:13, Fluffles wrote:
On what hardware is this? Using any form of geom software RAID?
The low Per Char results would lead me to believe it's a very slow CPU;
maybe VIA C3 or some old pentium? Modern systems should get 100MB/s+ in
per-char bonnie benchmark,
Fluffles wrote:
The bonnie Per Char-benchmark is often bottlenecked by the CPU since it
requires either a lot of cpu power or a lot of memory activity; both
which puts demands on the cpu. If i see only 0.5MB in the Per
Char-benchmark, i would suspect a slow CPU. Slow is a relative term
Ivan Voras wrote:
Fluffles wrote:
The bonnie Per Char-benchmark is often bottlenecked by the CPU since it
requires either a lot of cpu power or a lot of memory activity; both
which puts demands on the cpu. If i see only 0.5MB in the Per
Char-benchmark, i would suspect a slow CPU. Slow is
Fluffles wrote:
single drive (ad6, Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB SATA/150)
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
--Seeks---
MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU
On 03/08/07 09:58, Fluffles wrote:
Eric Anderson wrote:
On 03/07/07 23:13, Fluffles wrote:
On what hardware is this? Using any form of geom software RAID?
The low Per Char results would lead me to believe it's a very slow CPU;
maybe VIA C3 or some old pentium? Modern systems should get
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:19:12 +0100
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
See here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-March/033494.html
Yes, that what i've got in the list and this how it was in the putty
terminal
originally. Nothing is missing.
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
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
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
Yep. It should look something like this output, from my dual-core
Opteron running Linux 2.6.19-ck2:
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.1)
System -- Linux daydream 2.6.19-ck2 #5 SMP PREEMPT Sat Jan 20
12:23:54 EST 2007 i686 athlon-4 i386 GNU/Linux
/dev/mapper/vg-u2 10321208 6610764
Artem Kuchin wrote:
TESTBASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables116700.0 10486183.3 898.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1289.1 234.4
Execl Throughput
Hmm. what kind of HDD, RAID or whatever are you using?
My raid pretty much sucks. It is build it on the intel motherboard
LSI Megaraid. But i still get 81Mb/sec when doing
dd if=/dev/ar0 of=/dev/null bs=1M
How much do you get on this?
--
Regards
Artem
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
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Hmm. what kind of HDD, RAID or whatever are you using?
My raid pretty much sucks. It is build it on the intel motherboard
LSI Megaraid. But i still get 81Mb/sec when doing
dd if=/dev/ar0 of=/dev/null bs=1M
How much do you get on this?
geom_mirror on 2 desktop SATA
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Hmm. what kind of HDD, RAID or whatever are you using?
My raid pretty much sucks. It is build it on the intel motherboard
LSI Megaraid. But i still get 81Mb/sec when doing
dd if=/dev/ar0 of=/dev/null bs=1M
How much do you get on this?
geom_mirror on 2 desktop SATA drives,
- Original Message -
From: Charles Shannon Hendrix [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:30:12 +0100
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:32:36 +0300
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. if the whole world uses wht version of unixbench maybe someone
should update freebsd ports version to this wht version, because
otherwise we cannot compare anything else than freebsd. Not good.
Does it really
- Original Message -
From: Torfinn Ingolfsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:32:36 +0300
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Now i am lost. i get 81MB/sec on dd but still you get
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 159513.0 402.8
and i get
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 109313.0 276.0
The drives i use are Seagate 7200.10 (320Gb, SATA
Fluffles wrote:
If you use dd on the raw device (meaning no UFS/VFS) there is no
read-ahead. This means that the following DD-command will give lower STR
read than the second:
no read-ahead:
dd if=/dev/mirror/data of=/dev/null bs=1m count=1000
read-ahead and multiple I/O queue depth:
dd
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Hmm. what kind of HDD, RAID or whatever are you using?
My raid pretty much sucks. It is build it on the intel motherboard
LSI Megaraid. But i still get 81Mb/sec when doing
dd if=/dev/ar0 of=/dev/null bs=1M
How much do you get on this?
geom_mirror on
- Original Message -
From: Fluffles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Hmm. what kind of HDD, RAID or whatever are you
Artem Kuchin wrote:
- Original Message - From: Fluffles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you use dd on the raw device (meaning no UFS/VFS) there is no
read-ahead. This means that the following DD-command will give lower STR
read than the second:
no read-ahead:
dd if=/dev/mirror/data
Ivan Voras wrote:
Fluffles wrote:
If you use dd on the raw device (meaning no UFS/VFS) there is no
read-ahead. This means that the following DD-command will give lower STR
read than the second:
no read-ahead:
dd if=/dev/mirror/data of=/dev/null bs=1m count=1000
read-ahead and multiple
On 03/07/07 23:13, Fluffles wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
Fluffles wrote:
If you use dd on the raw device (meaning no UFS/VFS) there is no
read-ahead. This means that the following DD-command will give lower STR
read than the second:
no read-ahead:
dd if=/dev/mirror/data of=/dev/null bs=1m
Artem Kuchin wrote:
I used unixbenchmark for measure overall perfomance of three machines of
different generations and with different OS versions. See for your self and
compare results with machine cost.
Hope this will be usefull for someone.
Several things:
a) It looks like your message was
Artem Kuchin wrote:
I used unixbenchmark for measure overall perfomance of three machines of
different generations and with different OS versions. See for your self and
compare results with machine cost.
Hope this will be usefull for someone.
Several things:
a) It looks like your message was
Artem Kuchin wrote:
a) It looks like your message was weirdly truncated - whole rectangles
of text are missing from the results on the right-hand-side. Maybe you
copied it through Excel?
Ummm... hmmm.. i checked the message in the list, nothimng is missing.
Just like it was in the putty
See here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-March/033494.html
Yes, that what i've got in the list and this how it was in the putty terminal
originally. Nothing is missing. I don't know why open left parentesis are there.
--
Artem
Artem Kuchin wrote:
See here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-March/033494.html
Yes, that what i've got in the list and this how it was in the putty
terminal
originally. Nothing is missing. I don't know why open left parentesis
are there.
The block under the header:
35 matches
Mail list logo
