| 1 |
I know well that this is was completely unscientific and unreproductible |
| 2 |
behaviour, with only one run and so on. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
PDC20265: chipset revision 2 |
| 5 |
PDC20265: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later |
| 6 |
PDC20265: (U)DMA Burst Bit ENABLED Primary PCI Mode Secondary PCI Mode. |
| 7 |
ide2: BM-DMA at 0x7400-0x7407, BIOS settings: hde:DMA, hdf:pio |
| 8 |
ide3: BM-DMA at 0x7408-0x740f, BIOS settings: hdg:pio, hdh:pio |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
hde: Maxtor 5T030H3, ATA DISK drive |
| 11 |
its an Athlon t-bird 1GHz |
| 12 |
MemTotal: 288548 kB |
| 13 |
(PC-100 SDRAM) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Filesystem on the drive used for compilations are ReiserFS. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Using r5 hash to sort names |
| 18 |
ReiserFS version 3.6.25 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
also, the fact that I dont use the same compiler flags for both |
| 21 |
compilers are a dead giveaway. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Better code, I can't speak for. More tests, I can, I've had to patch up |
| 24 |
some c++ code in order to fit the stricter tests, something I consider |
| 25 |
good. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
cpu idle time doesn't matter much when diskaccess is ventured, should I |
| 29 |
ever intend to do a good benchmark I'd use tmpfs for the whole process, |
| 30 |
and make sure I dont run out of RAM while doing it. This is a user |
| 31 |
comparsion, the feeling of how long things take to compile c++. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
And yes, the machine was in "normal use" at the time. Xchat, sylpheed |
| 34 |
and some aterm's. bad behaviour for a benchmarker. But standard for me |
| 35 |
whenever I compile things, and thats how I wanted the comparsion done. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
kernel is for once the default gentoo one, something I seldom use |
| 38 |
normally. (I prefer -jam series) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
//Spider |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> So, regarding your benchmarks Spider. There is something wrong, |
| 46 |
> definately. And I think our gentoo kernel heads around here should |
| 47 |
> take a close look at it. Sure, GCC 3.X *is* slower on compilation |
| 48 |
> time, however, your tests show a very disturbing fact: Under some |
| 49 |
> circumstances, your CPU seems to spend unreasonable amount of time not |
| 50 |
> doing anything. This could be an indication of a bigger issue, |
| 51 |
> possibly a configuration or a hardware issue. There might be an issue |
| 52 |
> going on with the cache or the filesystem or even the loader. How much |
| 53 |
> memory the PC you used has and what kind of drive and filesystem did |
| 54 |
> you use? (I hope that all this is not a side effect of one of the |
| 55 |
> Gentoo kernel patches...) |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
begin happy99.exe |
| 61 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 62 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 63 |
end |
Archives