Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:24:52 -0600 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@freebsd.org> To: Fluffles <etc@fluffles.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed Message-ID: <45F0EFA4.3030102@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <45F032B9.7090102@fluffles.net> References: <20070306020826.GA18228@nowhere> <45ECF00D.3070101@samsco.org><20070306050312.GA2437@nowhere><008101c75fcc$210c74a0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <esk9vq$uhh$1@sea.gmane.org><001a01c7601d$5d635ee0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <eskka8$adn$1@sea.gmane.org><001801c7603a$5339e020$0c00a8c0@Artem> <eskpd1$sm4$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070307105144.1d4a382f@daydream.goid.lan><002801c760e2$5cb5eb50$0c00a8c0@Artem> <esmvnp$khs$1@sea.gmane.org><005b01c760e6$9a798bf0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <esn2s6$1i9$1@sea.gmane.org> <001601c760ee$f76fa300$0c00a8c0@Artem> <45EF2252.1000202@fluffles.net> <45EF253B.8030909@fer.hr> <45EF9B8F.4000201@fluffles.net> <45EFA0C6.3060905@freebsd.org> <45F032B9.7090102@fluffles.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 100MB/s+ in >>> per-char bonnie benchmark, even a Sempron 2600+ 1.6GHz 128KB cache which >>> costs about $39. Then it might be logical DD gets higher results since >>> this is more 'easy' to handle by the CPU. The VFS/UFS layer adds >>> potential for nice performance-increases but it does take it's toll in >>> the form of cputime overhead. If your CPU is very slow, i can imagine >>> these optimizations having a detrimental effect instead. Just >>> guessing here. >> >> Before making speculative claims about slow CPU's and putting the VIA >> C3 in with that pile, please at least refer to what makes you believe >> that it is an issue. Comparing the VIA C3 to 'some old pentium' isn't >> exactly fair or accurate, and inferring it isn't a modern system isn't >> true either. > > I'm sorry if i offended you. But it is well-known that C3 Nehemiah has a > much lower IPC than processors from AMD and Intel. For general purpose > comparisons, i would guess a 400MHz Athlon 64 to outperform the 1GHz C3 > Nehemiah; just guessing here! Not to talk about Core2Duo who has even > higher IPC. No offense, I just prefer the fud to be kept off lists - it's essentially trolling I suppose. No doubt the C3 and C7 processors are slower than the top of the line Intel and AMD's - that's like comparing a Prius with a Porsche. If you can find a 400MHz Athlon 64, I'd enjoy seeing the benchmarks. :) However, just simple benchmarks for IPC don't tell much about a processor. > Though Nehemiah does have some fancy MPEG/AES hardware acceleration > stuff built-in, which makes it a suitable platform for a Media Center or > anything like that. Personally i think a budget AMD processor to be a > better option; they have the same power consumption under standby mode > (thanks to Cool'N'Quiet) but can deliver much higher performance when > needed (such as HighDef 1080p video?). Well, not actually the same power consumption at all. Again, do a little googling here, and you might find some actual numbers (not just reported numbers). > 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 > though; C3 can be powerful enough for the task you bought it, so i don't > want to discredit it. 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. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45F0EFA4.3030102>