Re: Performance on Sparc Ultra 10
On 18 Jun 2003, Steve Pacenka wrote:
> > 2.4.21:
> > ehec2,496M,3316,98,13866,27,5968,13,2856,92,12546,13,123.9,1,16,261,97,
^^^^^
> +++++,+++,13110,100,270,97,+++++,+++,1658,96
> Some comparative bonnie++ results ...
>
> 2.4.21 from Debian, Ultra 10 333 CPU, 512M RAM, mdma2 IDE 7200 RPM,
> 2M buffer
>
> 1G,3363,98,20275,38,5936,14,3148,95,14885,16,174.8,1,16,279,98,
^^^^^
> +++++,+++,13568,100,289,99,+++++,+++,1666,96
Well, the "Sequential Output --Block--" (marked with ^^^^) seems to be the
only noticeable difference by about a factor two. I don't know whether my
feeling is right that it is connected to the factor of two regarding RAM.
> 2.4.19, PC clone Athlon XP 1800+ CPU, 256M RAM, udma5 IDE
> 7200 RPM, 2M buffer
>
> 496M,13993,98,42720,22,15410,5,13887,95,38838,8,215.2,0,16,1714,96,
> +++++,+++,+++++,+++,1795,99,+++++,+++,4073,98
Well yes, it seems that an up to date Intel/AMD machine would be better
in any case here, but I hoped that we could find some use for the Ultra 10 ...
> 2.4.20, powermac 7300 w/G3-450 CPU, 448M RAM, fastnarrowscsi 7200 RPM
>
> 1G,6533,87,10500,14,3553,11,4032,55,7448,14,91.4,3,16,237,99,
> +++++,+++,26169,97,239,99,+++++,+++,813,100
Perhaps I could grab some PowerMac anywhere in my institute ... ;-)
Thanks for the tests
Andreas.
Reply to: