On Thursday 08 February 2001  9:55 pm, Chris Gilbert wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2001  9:46 pm, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > which takes
> > >
> > > Linux(x86/700MHz)		real 0.3  user 0.02 sys 0.27
> > >
> > > Solaris(ultra5/360MHz) 		real 3.1  user 0.3  sys 2.3
> > >
> > > Shark/NetBSD(SA110/233MHz)  	real 9.2  user 0.02 sys 1.9
> >
> > (NetBSD times reported by `time ./a.out')
> >
> > Sun SPARCClassic 50MHz      real    18.59  user 0.112 sys  3.641
> > DEC Maxine 33MHz            real  1:13.92  user 0.262 sys 36.582
> > Pentium 120/160 MHz (?)     real     3.21  user 0.022 sys  0.736
> >
> > RiscPC ARM7, 40 MHz         real    26.42  user 0.114 sys  6.743
> >
> > so compared to these figures it only really tests pmap performance, not
> > really processor performance....  You can see that the MIPS pmap code
> > isn't performing that well too ... wich could explain the slow compiling
> > speed too. The processor speed in user mode is more about what to expect
> > from 33MHz compared to 50MHz.
>
> Yep, that sounds about right.  pmap performance is the major problem. 
> Hence I hoped for a speed increase by using kinetic ram.  In this test
> there isn't much I get:
> 22.91 real         0.06 user         5.76 sys
> on the kinetic card.

DOH!  Sorry those figures are wrong.  I had a kernel with UVMHIST enabled 
(from when playing the kernel vm stuff)  The real figures are:
/usr/bin/time ./a.out
        9.17 real         0.00 user         2.06 sys

Which is more like the Shark figures.

Cheers,
Chris