On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:09 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > >> coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9 > >> does work just fine with 8 cores. > >> > >> mpls; cat /dev/sysstat > >> 0 14271 213501 3399 1116 0 > >> 0 0 99 0 > > > > Looking at the output 99% is idle time. Have you had a chance to > > look at this system when it is fully loaded with something > > meaningful? > > not really. a kernel compile from ramfs took about 2.9s with an > average of more than 3s of cpu used for every second of real time. a > compile from the fs over a gigabit link took about 1s longer, but used > far less cpu. > > neither is particular impressive, but i'm not using a great percentage > of the cycles available ( ~3/8) and i am using the slowest processor on > the sheet and, due to my misreading of the datasheet, i have only half > the memory channels populated.
I see. > did you have anything specific in mind? Not really, no. Most of the benchmarks that I'm familiar with would require a strong compiler support which is not (yet?) available on Plan9. Things like SPEC OMP and the like. I was looking more for a nice war story, I guess. Thanks, Roman.
