Re: SPECmarks

Article View: comp.arch

Article #22525

#22525

From: Henry Spencer
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1990 17:53

11 lines
872 bytes

In article <76700146@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>I don't disagree that you need to test a spectrum of operations; the
>SPEC benchmark is good in this respect.  But keeping SPEC large is a
>poor way to test for caching affects.

Why?  Most of the applications that people will be running are similarly
large.  Surely the way to test for caching effects on large programs is
to run large programs?
-- 
"The N in NFS stands for Not, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1990Feb22.175317.12898@utzoo.uucp>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry

References: <7393@pdn.paradyne.com> <76700146@p.cs.uiuc.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPECmarks
Message-ID: <1990Feb22.175317.12898@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <7393@pdn.paradyne.com> <76700146@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 17:53:17 GMT

Reply to Parent Message