* Senseless benchmarks
@ 1994-03-28 5:49 Piers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Piers @ 1994-03-28 5:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 00:27:03 -0500
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@groucho.cse.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <94Mar28.002712est.2542@groucho.cse.psu.edu>
Just for fun, I ran the following program on a machine running SunOS and on a
machine running Plan 9 (with obvious alterations to get it to compile.)
I was hoping to see Plan 9 go faster, but they took about the same time
(10 seconds on a Sparcstation I).
...
I just did that on an SS-1000 running SunOS 5.2, and it took 17.3 seconds.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Senseless benchmarks
@ 1994-03-28 7:52 David
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David @ 1994-03-28 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
> > I just did that on an SS-1000 running SunOS 5.2, and it took 17.3 seconds.
>
> Make sure you statically link it. Otherwise you pay for all sorts
> of shared library overhead.
I just tried it, and it runs twice as fast (around 8 seconds) if I
statically link. Plan 9 on a lowly sparc ELC runs the test in about
4 secs -- twice as fast again!
I heard some rumor about fork on Solaris taking 1/10th of a second
around the time that we got the SS-1000s, but perhaps this was
fixed in a later release of Solaris.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Senseless benchmarks
@ 1994-03-28 6:06 Scott
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott @ 1994-03-28 6:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I just did that on an SS-1000 running SunOS 5.2, and it took 17.3 seconds.
Make sure you statically link it. Otherwise you pay for all sorts
of shared library overhead.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Senseless benchmarks
@ 1994-03-28 5:27 Scott
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott @ 1994-03-28 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
Just for fun, I ran the following program on a machine running SunOS and on a
machine running Plan 9 (with obvious alterations to get it to compile.)
I was hoping to see Plan 9 go faster, but they took about the same time
(10 seconds on a Sparcstation I). Has anyone done more thoughtful
benchmarks comparing the two kinds of systems?
/*
#include <u.h>
#include <libc.h>
#define exit exits
*/
main()
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<1000; ++i) {
if (fork()) {
wait(0);
} else {
exit(0);
}
}
}
P.S. reason #2 why plan 9 is not my favorite operating system "vc, xc, etc".
given that you will usually use an mkfile most of the time anyway,
why not name them something sensible like "sparc-cc, mips-cc, etc-cc"?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1994-03-28 7:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1994-03-28 5:49 Senseless benchmarks Piers
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1994-03-28 7:52 David
1994-03-28 6:06 Scott
1994-03-28 5:27 Scott
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).