From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d6c1a5786910707026acc060f9442cb1@csplan9.rit.edu>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:28:20 -0400
From: john@csplan9.rit.edu
In-Reply-To: <14ec7b180804101405q5f810c3bw2856b3af67ef2bd4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] FTQ benchmark available
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8c7cc014-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>>  i wonder if they'll give the same results!
>
> yes, the results are very similar (it's not an exact number). top here
> is the original ftq, bottom is John's port:
>
> http://mirtchovski.com/screenshots/ftq.jpg
>
> btw, John, please add a "clean" option to the mkfile; also,
> exits("success") is wrong.

Ok, fixed that stuff and ran some tests of my own.
My ftq: http://csplan9.rit.edu/users/john/my-ftq.png
Original ftq: http://csplan9.rit.edu/users/john/other-ftq.png

The FFTs look very different; I wonder which one is more correct?
I ran these tests one after the other on our CPU/auth/file server,
which had only one user (me) logged in over drawterm.

John