Re: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results

[Con Kolivas]

Quoting Ingo Molnar <[e-mail]>:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 
> > IO Full Load:
> > 2.5.38                  170.21          42%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32            230.77          30%
> 
> how many times are you running each test? You should run them at least
> twice (ideally 3 times at least), to establish some sort of statistical
> noise measure. Especially IO benchmarks tend to fluctuate very heavily
> depending on various things - they are also very dependent on the initial
> state - ie. how the pagecache happens to lay out, etc. Ie. a meaningful
> measurement result would be something like:

Yes you make a very valid point and something I've been stewing over privately
for some time. contest runs benchmarks in a fixed order with a "priming" compile
to try and get pagecaches etc back to some sort of baseline (I've been trying
hard to make the results accurate and repeatable). 

Despite that, you're correct in assuming the IO load will fluctuate widely. My
initial tests show that noload and process_load (not surprisingly) vary very
little. Mem_load varies a little. IO Loads can vary wildly, and the worse the
average performance is, the greater the variation (I mean percentage variation
not just absolute).

>  IO Full Load:
>  2.5.38                  170.21 +- 55.21 sec        42%
>  2.5.38-gcc32            230.77 +- 60.22 sec        30%
> 
> where the first column is the average of two measurements, the second
> column is the delta of the two measurements divided by 2. This way we can
> see the 'spread' of the results.

I'll create some results based on 3 runs soon. 

> I simply cannot believe that gcc32 can produce any visible effect in any
> of the IO benchmarks, the only explanation would be heavy fluctuation of
> IO results.

Agreed. There probably is no statistically significant difference in the
different gcc versions.

Contest is very new and I appreciate any feedback I can get to make it as
worthwhile a benchmark as possible to those who know.

Con.