🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Rothwell (arothwel@cisco.com) wrote:
> In <CyC9L1.5Hx@world.std.com> mew@world.std.com (Michael E Willett) writes:

>>I've just been reading the new bit.listserv.banyan-l posting from John
>>Krogh at Rockwell (Re: Preferred superserver for LANs: NetFrame or Tricord?).
>>He just posted "Take benchmarks with a grain of salt.  In most cases, the
>>testing environment almost always leans toward getting specific results
>>(specific examples posted)...Statistics (benchmarks) can be used to prove
>>just about any point of view you want them to...

> Bah humbug Michael.
> Yes they can. But you are using this as an excuse. Which is intolerable.
> That's why I said *appropriate and useful comparitive benchmarks*. Get it?!

>>Our own customers do seem to require being shown at their own sites exactly
>>how much their own particular applications will be speeded up, rather
>>than relying on prior benchmark data.

> Of course everyone wants to see their applications benchmarked. That's
> not the issue. How does your ("raid 7") system stack up compared to other
> raid solutions, using well known benchmarks.

So name me some 'well known benchmarks' that I can FTP without being either a
member of the RAB or an ANSI/ISO fellow, etc.  I'm not interested in paying a
bunch of money in order to run a supposedly 'open systems' benchmark.  I also
don't trust the vendor to run the benchmark, especially for mass storage
sub-systems.  Chances are slim-to-none that they use the same host with the
same patch level of O/S, RAM size, etc. that I'm using.

--
Tom Myers : tvmyers@icdc.delcoelect.com