On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Dan Kegel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dank@kegel.com">dank@kegel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Hans Leidekker <<a href="mailto:hans@codeweavers.com">hans@codeweavers.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> sec cpu wine notes<br>
>> 676 e7200 June <a href="http://kegel.com/new-computer-2008.html" target="_blank">http://kegel.com/new-computer-2008.html</a> ubuntu 8.04<br>
>> 615 e7300 Nov<br>
>> 585 e7400 Nov (estimated, supposedly 5% faster than e7300)<br>
>> 540 e8400 Nov<br>
>> 360 q9400 Nov<br>
>><br>
>> In all cases, this was with the default optimization<br>
>> level, -O2. Compiling with -O0 was roughly twice as fast<br>
</div>>> dual core e7300 and e8400 used -j3; quad core -j5.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">><br>
> Does your measurement include running configure?<br>
<br>
</div>No, nor make depend. Nor is it cold boot, it's after 'make clean'.<br>
I didn't control whether there was a previous run, so the cache may be<br>
warm or cold.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> If I run make -j5 twice after 'make clean' on my q6600 2.4GHz system<br>
> and take the second measurement I get 223 seconds.<br>
><br>
> This is 64bit Ubuntu 8.10 with gcc-4.3.2 and default<br>
> optimization. Or perhaps disk IO is playing a role here?<br>
> I'm using a stripe set of two disks.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, could be disk I/O. This system has a crappy old parallel IDE drive.<br>
(Could also be the video; this system has an internal graphics card.)<br>
<font color="#888888">- Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div>Dan,<br>
<br>
Could you post photos and complete specs of the PW cluster somewhere? I'm curious :)<br>
<br>-Zach<br>