From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ronald G Minnich To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Performance In-Reply-To: <20010508213335.E2ACC19A28@mail.cse.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 20:09:53 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9bddb20c-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 8 May 2001, Russ Cox wrote: > On the other hand, lmbench might be more suited to > Plan 9 than to Unix. At least on Plan 9 you can > be more certain that you're measuring something real, > as opposed to code that gcc has optimized into the > empty instruction sequence. Don't be too hard on it. Some tests are useful. I have always had good luck with the memory stuff, to the point that a good digital scope and lmbench agree on memory cycle time to within a few ns +-. Handy if you don't want to rip the machine open and measure it. ron