From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 11:16:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADCF16A4CE; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out4.xs4all.nl (smtp-out4.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C07143D1D; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:16:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: from freebie.xs4all.nl (freebie.xs4all.nl [213.84.32.253]) by smtp-out4.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1NJGqOh035405; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:16:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from freebie.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freebie.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1NJGq6R005898; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:16:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: (from wkb@localhost) by freebie.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i1NJGq9l005897; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:16:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wkb) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:16:52 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte To: Oliver Lehmann Message-ID: <20040223191652.GB5837@freebie.xs4all.nl> References: <20040223192103.59ad7b69.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040223192103.59ad7b69.lehmann@ans-netz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-OS: FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE X-PGP: finger wilko@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bad performance on alpha? (make buildworld) X-BeenThere: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Alpha List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:16:55 -0000 On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:21:03PM +0100, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Hi, > > I run several buildworld's on both, an Alpha EV56 and a Intel PII. I'm > wondering that the Pentium beats the Alpha. Both systems have INVARIANTS* > and WITNESS* disabled. Furthermore, no special tweakups - nearly "out of > the box" configured. ... > And I don't think CURRENT is that "faster" than 5.2.1. Why does (my) alpha > performs so bad? Some ideas? Is that behaviour common for FreeBSD/alpha or > did I missed something in my consideration? Bit of a FAQ, but the last time I checked it was due to the code generation for Alpha being lots slower. -- Wilko Bulte wilko@FreeBSD.org