From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:34:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:33:57 -0400 Received: from cisco7500-mainGW.gts.cz ([194.213.32.131]:6916 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:33:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20010613004116.A26811@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:41:16 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: threading question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:24:04PM -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > I am a summer student implementing a multi-threaded version of a very > popular bioinformatics tool. So far it compiles and runs without problems > (as far as I can tell ;) on Linux 2.2.x, Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX and Compaq > OSF/1 running on Alpha. I have ran a lot of timing tests compared to the > sequential version of the tool on all of these machines (most of them are > dual-CPU, although I am also running tests on 12-CPU Solaris and 108 CPU > SGI IRIX). On dual-CPU machines the speedups are as follows: my version > is 1.88 faster than the sequential one on IRIX, 1.81 times on Solaris, > 1.8 times on OSF/1, 1.43 times on Linux 2.2.x and 1.52 times on Linux 2.4 > kernel. Why are the numbers on Linux machines so much lower? It is > the But this is all different hw, no? So dual cpu SPARC is more efficient than dual cpu i686. Maybe SPARCs have faster RAM and slower cpus... Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org