Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!warrane.connect.com.au!godzilla.zeta.org.au!not-for-mail From: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD?! Date: 21 Feb 1995 07:24:23 +1100 Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney - +61-2-837-1183, v.32bis v.42bis Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3iatpn$u4p@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <3i7ar8$ahv@marton.hsr.no> <3iaaai$72u@agate.berkeley.edu> <3iab0s$hjl@ivory.lm.com> <3iabnv$i74@ivory.lm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.zeta.org.au In article <3iabnv$i74@ivory.lm.com>, Peter Berger <peterb@telerama.lm.com> wrote: >> >>These were run on identical hardware. The benchmark is Dhrystone 2.1, >>which is more reliable than the 1.1 version I noticed others using as it >>is less affected by secondary cache. >> >>Here's the table. 1,000,000 runs through Dhrystone in each case. >> >>Machine OS One Ds (musec.) Ds/sec >>======= ============ =============== ====== >>Blindman FreeBSD2.0-R 36.0 27,790.6 >>Blindman BSD/OS 1.1 27.9 35,820.9 >>Blindman NetBSD 1.0-R 27.8 36,014.4 Dhrystone is probably misconfigured. 36.0 / 27.8 is 1.29 which is strikingly close to the ratio of the CLK_TCK's in FreeBSD-2.0 and NetBSD-1.0 (128.0 / 100.0). Use a stopwatch to check the calibration of Dhrystone. -- Bruce Evans bde@zeta.org.au