IOCALL results and problems

[Larry McVoy]

In article <761 at petrus.UUCP> hammond at petrus.UUCP (Rich A. Hammond) writes:
>> In article <354 at ncr-sd.UUCP> stubbs at ncr-sd.UUCP (0000-Jan Stubbs) writes:
>> >
>> >	IOCALL, A UNIX SYSTEM PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK
>> >... The benchmark is a "C" program which measures Unix kernel performance. 
>> 
>Dan Tsao writes:
>> 	Well I don't want to flame too much. Just a few comments.
>> 
>> 	Basically, I find it difficult to take this benchmark and the presented
>> results too seriously.

I tend to agree with Dan.  I think what people would like to see is a 
benchmark which measures how well Unix, running multiple users, performs
on each machine.  The benchmark would have to measure something that did
not vary widely (such as I/O devices), as those results would only reflect
how much one had spent on the bus & disk.  So, how about this:

The dryhstone benchmarks are considered good tests of the CPU (at least by 
me they are), but don't really test Unix at all (in fact some people run 
them in standalone mode).  How about a version, (called forkstone?), which
runs the dryhstone as 1, 2, 8, and 64 concurrent processes?  This would
show 1) the speed of the CPU, 2) first part of the curve, 8) a nice single
user level, and 64) what happens when you have multiple users.  

It would not test I/O, which is a hard thing to test fairly.  It would get
rid of those Z80 dryhstones (flame, flame) as they're not multi tasking...

I guess if there is any response and nobody wants to do it, I'll hack the
drystones.  I think it would be better if the original author did it, as
{s}he probably can understand that bastardized {C}Ada source.

Please post your views to the net.  I don't want to discuss this via mail.

-- 
Larry McVoy
-----------
Arpa:  mcvoy at rsch.wisc.edu                              
Uucp:  {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!geophiz!larry      

"If you are undertaking anything substantial, C is the only reasonable 
 choice of programming language"   -  Brian W. Kerninghan