Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 22:50:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu (Charles Henrich) Cc: FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.Org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: A performance mystery Message-ID: <199506030550.WAA09513@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199506030540.WAA09476@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Charles Henrich" at Jun 3, 95 01:40:40 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Notice the fact these numbers are *IDENTICAL*, but yours are not, > > again something does not add up :-( > > I am as baffled as you are, I just do not understand how the Compaq with > such miserable memory performance (how exactly do you build a computer > so that reads are *slower* than writes?) and much slower CPU can do so > well in the overall. The only thing I have ever seen that makes writes faster than reads is a system with the turbo mode turned off. But that would make the slow machine even FASTER :-(. I am starting to wonder about seek times of the disks, this can be a major contributor to build time of a kernel. If you could only make the memory in both machines the same size so that we could pull the whole kernel sources into the buffer cache and see what the difference was. cd /sys find . | xargs cat >/dev/null cd compile/YOURKERNEL; time make all >&make.OUT Please include full output results from time command, it may show us some more things to look at. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506030550.WAA09513>