In the last time I worked a lot with the Freepasval compiler. In the GUI
version it shows the compilation time so it is a perfect tool for
benchmarking. The results are very interresting.
The computer: Pentium 4, SSD PATA disk, 512MB RAM
The task: Compilation of the full Blocek source ("Build all") - 64603 lines
of code using FreePascal 3.2.0 (GUI)
Windows 98: 5,6s
FD, cwsdpmi, noUIDE, noLBAcache: 208,2s
FD, hdpmi32, noUIDE, noLBAcache: 159,8s
FD, cwsdpmi, noUIDE, LBAcache4096: 54,9s
FD, hdpmi32, noUIDE, LBAcache4096: 20,5s
FD, cwsdpmi, UIDE160, noLBAcache: 72,1s
FD, hdpmi32, UIDE160, noLBAcache: 40,6s
FD, cwsdpmi, UIDE160, LBAcache4096: 72,2s - 178,8s
FD, hdpmi32, UIDE160, LBAcache4096: 18,7s
FD, hdpmi32, UIDE160, LBAcache16384: 18,6s
MSDOS 7.1, hdpmi32, UIDE160, LBAcache4096: 10,4s
MSDOS 7.1, hdpmi32, UIDE160, LBAcache16383: 7,6s
The conclusions:
1) The speed without any cache is really awfull. On the speed machine and od
the SSD disk! I do not understand why. Maybe the DOS uses some techniques
which are contraproductive on SSDs
2) Hdpmi32 does not use the RAM disk swapping while CWSDPMI does and it
seems to be a reason why it speeds up the things so much. I do not
understand why CWSDPMI does it even on machine with 512MB RAM.
3) UIDE helps but even with the cache size 160MB is the gained performance
much less than from LBAcache with 4MB.
4) Windows98 is a speed king
5) MS-DOS 7.1 is faster than FreeDOS
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
