1 |
Unfortunately BPS has an annoying habit of overwriting the test |
2 |
output files every time it is run regardless of which test you |
3 |
actually run. I didn't notice this when I was doing my initial stuff |
4 |
on RedHat so I lost all the other tests results from BPS. I have |
5 |
better tests of the hardware since then. We ran HPL on the PowerPC |
6 |
cluster running both Gentoo 2005.1 and Mac OS 10.4 (mac os was ~ %5 |
7 |
faster on average). I ran IOZone on our XRaid using HFS+ under Mac |
8 |
OS, and Reiser, xfs, jfs, and ext3 under Gentoo for PPC64. |
9 |
|
10 |
I also ran tests using Mr Bayes, ClustalW, MPIBench, and several |
11 |
other in house tests that I had available but all of these tests |
12 |
where either inconclusive or failed to demonstrate any difference |
13 |
between the platforms. |
14 |
|
15 |
I will be doing a bunch of this again here in a bit in order to get |
16 |
data on our new OS build we are putting into production =) |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
On Apr 11, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Brandon Edens wrote: |
20 |
|
21 |
>> Yeah, from the numbers it looks as if it would be dependent on the |
22 |
>> purpose of the cluster whether OS X or Gentoo would do better. On |
23 |
>> ppc, |
24 |
>> Gentoo does poorly on the first two benchmarks and also on context |
25 |
>> switching. On x86, the first two are more comparable with RH, but the |
26 |
>> others, Gentoo has a small to large advantage over RH, just as on |
27 |
>> ppc. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> First and second benchmarks are dhrystone and whetstone, synthetic |
30 |
> benchmarks. |
31 |
> I'd be wary of these types of benchmarks; they've been cheated |
32 |
> before. I'd like |
33 |
> to see some real-world computation benchmarks. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Brandon Edens |
36 |
> |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-cluster@g.o mailing list |