|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
no it is not just your computer .. I get the same error and cannot fix it
and I have been on with a relatively good tech support guy who made sure my
temp file was truly empty .. all to no avail
----- Original Message -----
From: <Trevor.Neil@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bfulks@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:13 AM
Subject: RE: SP5 Update - Not Stable
> Why I tried to load it, but it could not extract because there was not
> enough space in the /temp directory. There is lots of space on the
computer.
> I downloaded it again and the same thing happened. I guess it is a problem
> with my computer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Fulks [mailto:bfulks@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 31 May 2000 11:58
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: SP5 Update - Not Stable
>
>
> At 12:58 PM -0700 5/30/00, David Fenstemaker wrote:
>
> >I have been running the SP 5 update since last week,
> >and true to Omega, it is less stable than SP3 or SP4.
>
> <snip>
>
> >The biggest problem with SP 5 is optimization,
> >or changing system parameters while off line.
>
>
>
>
> Although it has only been running for a short time, I have seen more
> stability and speed with the new release. It is clearly faster for
> optimization runs than previous versions.
>
> Below is a summary of the time in seconds required per test for an
> optimization run I that have used as a benchmark on several machines.
> (These results include tests by several people on the same
> benchmark.) It shows the that TS2000i was about the same speed as
> TS4.0 through SP4c but became a factor of about two faster with SP5.
>
> The slowest was 8.7 seconds per test for a slower machine on TS4.0
> down to 1.4 seconds per test on the fastest machine on SP5.
>
> This is for a clean install of SP3, upgraded to SP4c, then upgraded to
SP5.
>
> I wondered how the users are finding the quality level and speed of SP5?
>
> Latest summary of benchmarks attached below.
>
> Bob
>
> ----------------------------
>
> The time per test was as follows (in seconds). (The total time for an
> optimization run would be these numbers multiplied be the number of
> tests performed in the run.)
>
> OS TS4.0 TS2000i TS2000i
> SP4c SP5
> HP Pavilion 8550 Celeron 500 Win98 8.7
> Gateway GP6 PII 300 WinNT 6.4
> Gateway E-5200 PIII 500 WinNT 5.3 4.7 2.3
> RK-500 (AMD K6 500) Win2000 4.9* 5.5**
> Athlon A-750 machine Win2000 2.3 1.4
>
> * 20 GB IDE disk
> ** 9 GB SCSI disk
>
>
> ------
>
> NBench performance numbers on the machines:
>
> RK500 E-5200 8550C A-750
>
> CPU Performance, MOPs/sec
> Integer Speed: 481 363 362 599
> Floating Speed: 82 74 73 162
>
> Memory Move Performance (MBytes/sec)
> region width random random random random
> 1KB 1 216 214 124 400
> 1KB 2 345 430 248 794
> 1KB 4 913 897 496 1588
> 1KB 8 1335 1100 737 2075
> 10KB 1 193 215 123 404
> 10KB 2 318 419 246 791
> 10KB 4 798 836 495 1580
> 10KB 8 1249 1060 728 2062
> 100KB 1 14 29 37 76
> 100KB 2 28 58 73 150
> 100KB 4 55 114 145 296
> 100KB 8 134 276 294 720
> 1000KB 1 6 16 10 23
> 1000KB 2 13 32 19 46
> 1000KB 4 25 64 37 91
> 1000KB 8 61 150 90 176
>
> region width serial serial serial serial
> 1KB 1 319 255 171 495
> 1KB 2 393 503 341 965
> 1KB 4 1019 1010 697 1904
> 1KB 8 1313 1033 688 2007
> 10KB 1 293 247 170 499
> 10KB 2 374 510 337 978
> 10KB 4 955 1024 691 1910
> 10KB 8 1222 1026 682 2003
> 100KB 1 53 116 91 221
> 100KB 2 83 181 165 402
> 100KB 4 122 247 270 651
> 100KB 8 135 276 295 723
> 1000KB 1 24 53 35 51
> 1000KB 2 38 90 58 95
> 1000KB 4 55 135 83 168
> 1000KB 8 61 146 90 183
>
> Disk (MBytes/sec)
> thread: C 0 0 0 0
> write: C 22 16 5 8
> read: C 23 17 5 11
>
> thread: C 0 0 0 0
> write: C 22 18 5 10
> read: C 23 16 6 26
>
> thread: D 0 0 0
> write: D 16 17 8
> read: D 21 17 16
>
> thread: D 0 0
> write: D 15 16
> read: D 21 16
>
> thread: E 0 0
> write: E 19 16
> read: E 20 18
>
> thread: E 0 0
> write: E 21 18
> read: E 21 16
>
>
|