Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386

[Brooks Davis]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:37:44PM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote:
> I thought that ULE was supposed to offer superior performance -- or at
> least, that's the word around the Internet -- but I have yet to discover
> that through my experience. Can anyone offer any possible explanation
> for ULE performing worse than 4BSD?

Have you contacted the author of ULE?  He is generally intrested in
reports to this effect and has been able to fix reproducable problems in
the past.

> How about AMD64 being slower than i386 on the same hardware? By
> slower, I mean a buildworld -j4 took about 400 seconds longer in AMD64
> mode.

You can't usefully compare compile times when you are compiling for
a different instructions set.  The work involved is rairly the same
so the results are meaning less.  If you could factor out the cost of
building the native bootstrap tools since that isn't the same job on
each machine, the speed of a cross buildworld would be an intresting
test.  For comparing i386 and amd64, I'd probably build an alpha or
sparc64 world so the target would be entierly different.

-- Brooks

-- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/attachments/20040224/f418763f/attachment.bin