> 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.
> 

pmap fork/exit performance is precisely what the test was intended to 
cover.  For shell scripts this is what dominates performance on ARM 
platforms.  Here are two more examples:

RiscPC SA110, 233 MHz	real  30.2  user 0.06  sys 13.6
Pentium P90		real  5.69  user 0.02  sys 1.33

I know the memory system on a RPC sucks, but I'm sure we can do a lot 
better than that.


> I would like to see a better benchmark ... hmm... what does
> /usr/pkgsrc/benchmarks say :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Reinoud
> 
> 
>