Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:59:30 +0530 (IST) | From | V Ganesh <> | Subject | Re: bad lmbench numbers for mmap |
| |
> From: David Miller <davem@twiddle.net> > From: V Ganesh <ganesh@vxindia.veritas.com> > > I just posted the raw numbers and we are roughly twice as slow as > solaris. > > At least it is consistant with the fact that the solaris run had to > touch roughly half as much memory during the benchmark than Linux did.
not really, unless I'm really mistaken. lat_mmap's man page says: ... The benchmark maps in and unmaps the first size bytes of the file repeatedly and reports the average time for one mapping/unmapping. ... Output format is "%0.2f %d\n", megabytes, usecs, i.e., 8.00 1200
so from the raw output for linux's lat_mmap run, we get stuff like 16.777216 17745 33.554432 35039 and from solaris, we get 16.777216 9321
of course we can't use the 32M mmap on linux for comparison (which is what I mistakenly did at first), but surely we can compare the two 16 meg mmaps ? and solaris is definitely consistently faster by a factor of roughly 2. total memory size is irrelevant unless you directly (and wrongly) compare the "make see" output of machines which don't have identical amts of RAM.
ganesh
ganesh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |