Re: Performance on Sparc Ultra 10
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 03:48, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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.
Data density difference on a track? From its name, this test would be
writing a block much larger than the on-drive buffer and should be
limited by the rate at which the drive can write to whole tracks on a
platter, and seek between nearby tracks. More data per track = fewer
Another thing that could be limiting might be file fragmentation on the
drive. The partition I used has had little written to it ever.
> but I hoped that we could find some use for the Ultra 10 ...
My U10 does file, IMAP, apache, and print server duty most of the time.
It provides a decently responsive 1600x1200 15 bit GUI when needed.
These things must have been ~$5K engineering or financial workstations