Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!think!ames!amdahl!unixprt!ralmar!ralph
From: ralph@ralmar.UUCP (Ralph Barker)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Benchmarking the 532, 68030, MIPS, 386...at a Usenix!
Message-ID: <401@ralmar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-May-87 12:49:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: ralmar.401
Posted: Mon May 18 12:49:56 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 19-May-87 06:26:41 EDT
References: <324@dumbo.UUCP> <809@killer.UUCP> <2417@homxa.UUCP> <15484@gatech.gatech.edu>
Organization: ralmar
Lines: 25
Summary: How about Neal Nelson's Business Benchmark(tm)?
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:1346 comp.org.usenix:190


Assuming succes in obtaining manufacturer participation in the proposed
"Bench-Off", what are the thoughts of using Neal Nelson's Business
Benchmark(tm) for this purpose?  

The series of 18 tests (and, multiple copies of each test) which the Nelson
benchmark runs appears to provide an excellent picture of not only the various
aspects of system performance ("raw" computing power, I/O, disk speed,
etc.), but also multi-user performance as well.  The Business Benchmark(tm)
does not cover the graphics or compiler performance (i.e. Prolog) issues
raised earlier in this discussion, but it does seem to cover most of the
other areas.  

Although I have personally used Nelson's Business Benchmark in connection
with a hardware review done for UNIX/World Magazine, and found the results
to be highly useful, others with more extensive benchmarking experience may
have other thoughts on the issue (or the validity of Nelson's approach).
(NOTE:  Due to the number of iterations within each test, Nelson's benchmark
typically takes several hours to run, thus a special subset might be more
appropriate within the context of a Usenix conference.)  

-- 
Ralph Barker, RALMAR Business Systems, 640 So Winchester Blvd, San Jose,CA 95128
uucp: ...{ucbvax,hplabs}!sun!idi---\!ralmar!ralph
      ...pyramid!amdahl!unixprt----/             Voice: (408) 248-8649