Re: bad lmbench numbers for mmap

Jakub Jelinek (jj@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz)
Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:35:02 +0200 (CEST)

> hi,
> I tried lmbench 1.9 on an ultra5 (270 MHz, 128 MB RAM) running
> linux 2.2.2 and compared with an identical machine running solaris 2.6(except
> it had 64M). linux blew solaris away in most of the benchmarks except mmap
> latency.

Actually, all the numbers are horribly bad on the ultra. I haven't run
lmbench for a while, and I see it was a mistake. The mmap is clearly very
bad, especially when 2.1.103 kernel on 167 MHz Ultra had mmap latency of
1505usec. I'll check what's going on. Anyway, we have a couple of new things
prepared for sparc64 for 2.3 once that gets opened, so the numbers might
actually get better again.

BTW: So that I have good comparisons, can you please send me full benchmark
numbers (best the results/ files) from your 450PII and ultra5/Solaris,
preferably using ftp://ftp.bitmover.com/lmbench/lmbench-2alpha11.tgz ?
Thanks.

Cheers,
Jakub
___________________________________________________________________
Jakub Jelinek | jj@sunsite.mff.cuni.cz | http://sunsite.mff.cuni.cz
Administrator of SunSITE Czech Republic, MFF, Charles University
___________________________________________________________________
UltraLinux | http://ultra.linux.cz/ | http://ultra.penguin.cz/
Linux version 2.2.5 on a sparc64 machine (3958.37 BogoMips)
___________________________________________________________________

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/