HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grossman@cs.ucf.edu (David Grossman)
Subject: Unix/SUN benchmark questions
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:48:27 GMT

I apologize if this is an FAQ or if it would be better posted to a UNIX
conference. 

I am trying to learn more about the performance of some code I have
that runs under UNIX. It reads a one megabyte file, stores about 1
megabyte of things in memory and writes around 2-3 megabytes of data
to an output file. Performance is important as I am preparing to
scale up to input sizes that may be as large as 1-2 gigabytes.

Comparing wall-clock time for different machines, (tests were run
during off-peak hours) the code takes:

SUN3 ==> 4 minutes and 28 seconds
SUN/SPARC ==> 1 minutes and 18 seconds
DEC Station 5000/240 ==> 14 seconds

To learn more about what is affecting performance the most, I put
in a call to the "getrusage" function.

In looking for differences, the most glaring is the number
of I/O that did result in a page fault.
The SUN3 took 77, SPARC 72, and the DEC required 0 page faults. This
can be explained by looking at memory utilization output by the
system "time" command. Here the SUN3 used 456K (on average), the 
SPARC 1048K and the DEC 1969K.

Hence, it looks like the availability of memory the process was a  
big factor in performance. Makes sense, but I'd be interested to 
know the following:

1. Is it possible to find out how much real memory is available to a 
   process? I have looked at the "limit" command, but modifications
   to various limits have not changed the amoun of memory used.
   Also, when I look at the resource set size and multiply by
   the value returned by "pagesize" I am still not clear as to
   why the DEC reports 0 page faults. The DEC indicates an RSS of 287
   and a pagesize of 4096. The Sparc reports and RSS of 382 for teh 
   same pagesize. So why does the DEC still have an average 
   memory utilization of 1969K compared to the SPARC's 1048K? 


2. Is there a set of standard benchmarks for these 3 machines that
   can be FTP'd from soemwhere?



3. Are there any additional tools out there that might help me
   learn more about the performance differences for a piece of
   code running on these different machines.


I'd greatly appreciate any help.



Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1466 comp.sys.dec:5254
From: farine@decus.ch
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.sys.dec
Subject: Re: Linpack Benchmark and VS-4000-90
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:03:57 CET
Followup-To: larose@cs.utk.edu
Organization: DECUS (Switzerland)

In article <lceg6dINNlv0@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, larose@thud.cs.utk.edu (Brian LaRose) writes:
>>>     <IRT>run linpack
>>>     Please send the results of this run to:
>>>     
>>>     Jack J. Dongarra
>>>     Mathematics and Computer Science Division
>>>     Argonne National Laboratory
>>>     Argonne, Illinois 60439
>>>     
>>>     Telephone: 312-972-7246
>>>     
>>>     ARPAnet: DONGARRA@ANL-MCS
> 
> 
> You have an older version of the linpack benchmark which lists the
> old address for Jack.
> 
> Please use the following address:
> 
>       Jack J. Dongarra
>       104 Ayres Hall
>       Computer Science Department
>       University of Tennessee,
>       Knoxville, TN 37996
> 
>       email to:    dongarra@cs.utk.edu
> 
> thanks,
> 
> -- 
> 
>     -------------------------------------
>     | Brian LaRose |  974-3647          |
>     | Ayres 217    |  larose@cs.utk.edu |
>     -------------------------------------
>     
I have inbetween received the newest Linpacks from netlib and sent some results
to the correct address:
Here are the results for Linpacks on a VAXstation 4000-60 with VMS 5.5-1 and
FORTRAN V 5.2
$ run LINPACKS.EXE;1
Please send the results of this run to:

Jack J. Dongarra
Computer Science Department
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1300

Fax: 615-974-8296

Internet: dongarra@cs.utk.edu

    norm. resid      resid           machep         x(1)          x(n)
 1.42986751E+00  3.40938568E-05  1.19209290E-07  9.99960721E-01  9.99971569E-01


   times are reported for matrices of order   100
     sgefa      sgesl      total     mflops       unit      ratio
times for array with leading dimension of 201
 2.891E-01  1.172E-02  3.008E-01  2.283E+00  8.761E-01  5.371E+00
 2.813E-01  7.813E-03  2.891E-01  2.375E+00  8.419E-01  5.162E+00
 2.617E-01  7.813E-03  2.695E-01  2.548E+00  7.850E-01  4.813E+00
 2.664E-01  8.984E-03  2.754E-01  2.493E+00  8.021E-01  4.918E+00


times for array with leading dimension of 200
 2.578E-01  1.172E-02  2.695E-01  2.548E+00  7.850E-01  4.813E+00
 2.695E-01  1.172E-02  2.813E-01  2.441E+00  8.192E-01  5.022E+00
 2.578E-01  0.000E+00  2.578E-01  2.663E+00  7.509E-01  4.604E+00
 2.641E-01  1.016E-02  2.742E-01  2.504E+00  7.987E-01  4.897E+00
FORTRAN STOP
$
Thanks for your advice
-- 
Jean-Pierre Farine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:		farine@decus.ch
x.400:		c=ch,admd=arcom,o=grd,s=farine
FAX:		+41 31 67 61 21		Phone:	+41 31 67 61 10 / 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: transfer@framentec.fr (Mr Tranfert File)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.sys.super
Subject: EuroBen 92
Keywords: EuroBen 92
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:16:45 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Framentec, Paris, France


  The EuroBen 92 Workshop  was held on Sept 28-29th 92 at Regensburg,
  Germany, with the following agenda:

  Overview of results for the EuroBen Benchmark V2.0
        Aad van der Steen, ACCU, Utrecht University
  Prelilinary results for some algorithms of the EuroBen Benchmarks V3.0
        Aad van der Steen, ACCU, Utrecht University
  The SSBA Benchmark suites
        Nhuan DoDuc, AFUU & Framentec
  The PARANUSS Benchmark as part of EuroBen
        Fritz Ferstl, Genias Software
  Results of the EuroBen Benchmark on the SX-3 series
        Gerrit van der Velde, NEC Benelux
  Results of the EuroBen Benchmark on the Siemens S200
        Eckardt Kehl, Siemens-Nixdorf
  Version 2 of the PERFECT Benchmark
        Dave Schneider, CSRD, University of Illinois
  Results from the GENESIS Distributed Memory Benchmark
        Roger Hockney
  Selection procedure for the CCVR supercomputer
        Marie-Alice Foujols, CCVR
  Basic operations for Fourier transforms and Benchmarking
        Oswald Haan, Siemens-Nixdorf
  Selection procedure for supercomputers for the Japanese Imperial Universities
        Yasumada Kanada, University of Tokyo
  GENIAS' Grand Challenge GRACE Benchmarks
        Wolfgang Gentzsch, Genias Software

  The next EuroBen (93) workshop will take place (tentatively) by Sept 93
  in the UK. Information about EuroBen as well as about its workshops
  proceedings (90, 91 and 92) can be obtained from: actstea@cc.ruu.nl

  Un compte-rendu *circonstancie'* de ces trois re'unions existent pour la
  communaute' francophone et peut e^tre obtenu aupres de: doduc@framentec.fr

--nh
Nhuan DODUC,
Framentec-Cognitech, Paris, France, doduc@framentec.fr
Association Francaise des Utilisateurs d'Unix, France, doduc@afuu.fr
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6318 alt.irc:3420
From: mandel@unix.SRI.COM (Thomas F. Mandel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.irc
Subject: Revised Announcement of IRC discussion on security and cyberspace
Keywords: Security, Cyberspace, Hacker
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:35:16 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA



                          REVISED NOTICE
                                 
            IRC Discussion of Security and Cyberspace
                                 
SRI International is conducting a study looking at the future of
security in cyberspace.  As part of this work, SRI's Donn Parker
and some colleagues will be participating in an IRC discussion on
the subject on Wednesday and Thursday (October 7-8th) from about
3pm-8pm Pacific Daylight Time (6pm-11pm EDT), and interested
parties are invited to join in.

Due to unforeseen circumstances, Donn Parker will not be able to
participate for the first few hours on Wednesday but should be
joining us thereafter.
-- 
Tom Mandel		mandel@unix.sri.com

The opinions stated here are my own and not those of anyone else.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6053 misc.int-property:1069 comp.unix.bsd:6584 alt.suit.att-bsdi:391
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:57:46 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <WCS.92Sep29233331@budweiser.ATT.COM> wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
> I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of protecting algorithm
> discoveries, but in the case of RSA, the patent process has encouraged
> them to make their discoveries available to the public.
> Would they have done so even without patent protection?  Probably,
> but who knows.

We do! History shows that in the case of RSA the inventors published
their invention _without_ help from the patent process. Facts:

1. Martin Gardner published RSA in the August 1977 Scientific American.

2. The RSA patent was not filed until December 1977.

By waiting until December 1977 to file a patent, MIT lost any chance it
might have had for foreign patent rights. Is there any evidence at all
that the researchers were considering patent protection six months
before the patent was actually filed? The general public-key idea, which
had been discovered and published in 1975 and 1976, wasn't the subject
of a patent application until October 1977.

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Filthy Lucre (was Re- EFFec
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:41:21 GMT

In article <199210022133.AA04322@eff.org> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
> 
>Mike, some of the EFF's staffers get paid for what they do.  Shall we
>infer from your remarks that this means that they don't think that what
>they do is both morally right and important?

You fell into my trap. I knew for certain that you would try this
approach. Here's my prepared response:

None of EFF's staffers receive drugs for what they do. All of EFF's
staffers earn less money in their jobs than they could earn elsewhere.
And none of EFF's staffers break the law for money or drugs. It is fairly
trivial to distinguish, say, Gerard Van Der Leun from Pengo.

What sacrifices did the Hannover Hackers make in order to serve their
supposed idealistic goals?

>If it's ever moral to hack, hacking to save all vertebrate life on earth
>from nuclear war must qualify as one of the better reasons.
 
You shouldn't confuse your fantasy with their mental states.
It may be trendy in some circles to promote the Hannover Hackers as some
kind of moral heroes, but the available facts don't support your fantasy
of them.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6124 misc.int-property:1094 alt.suit.att-bsdi:414
From: farbrent!ajr3@ms.uky.edu
Subject: DAT TAX
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:13:53 GMT


John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com> writes:

## DAT as an audio medium is dead.  It failed in the marketplace.

I think your assertion is premature. As a professional medium, DAT is  
very much alive, they are in almost every recording studio and are  
gaining ground in the broadcast industry every day. Sales to  
consumers are also up.  DAT has been slow to gain ground because (1)  
there hasn't been sufficient support for the medium up to now (but in  
discussing the shortcomings of the minidisk, Sony has reaffirmed its  
support for DAT as a high end medium) and (2) That obnoxious SCMS  
system which the RIAA extorted into the machines.


## So the push behind this legislation seems to have evaporated.  We  
## may see it again if either of the next two consumer magnetic audio  
## media catch on.

It is much more likely that the bill was tabled due to the rush to  
finish the session and get home to campaign. The bill already  
encompasses all current and future devices and media capable of  
recording audio digitally. Count on seeing this one again. :-(

## I just hope the blank tapes remain available.   I use DAT tapes
## for disk backups.

I wouldn't sweat this one.

j.


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Flame-filters, anyone?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:48:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.020302.8948@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Sigh.  Mike unnecessarily flaming people with personal attacks on side
>issues as usual - could EFF buy a flame-filter for Mike to use at
>least in comp.org.eff.talk not to turn people off to EFF's goals and
>action?
>
>just an opinion..

How were you flamed, Jyrki? Over here, mere disagreement with one's
opinion is not normally classified as a flame.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:22:07 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

well, actually the patent grant (in the US, at least) gives the owner the
ability to stop others from making, using, or selling the invention.
35 USC 271.
Carl Oppedahl
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0228

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: LOVE@TEMPLEVM.BITNET
Subject: WINDO ALERT
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:31:31 GMT

                                  MEMO

From:          James Love
               Taxpayer Assets Project

RE:            Update on GPO WINDO legislation
               (HR 5983, successor to S. 2813 and HR 2772)

Date:          October 5, 1992


BACKGROUND

Congress is considering legislation that would provide the public
one-stop-shopping *online* access to federal information systems and
databases through the Government Printing Office (GPO).  The service,
which would *supplement* other agency and private sector information
products and services, would be priced at the *incremental cost of
dissemination* for most users, and be free to 1,400 federal depository
libraries.  A broad coalition of academic, library, journalist, citizen
and business groups support the legislation.

The original House bill was HR 2772, the GPO Wide Information Network
for Data Online (GPO WINDO), and the original Senate bill was S. 2813,
the GPO Gateway to Government Act.  A compromise bill, HR 5983 (which
has a number of concessions to House republicans)  was passed by the
House of Representatives on September 29, 1992.

     FMI:
     ====================================================
     fact sheets on S. 2813 and HR 2772,
     copies of S. 2813, HR 5983 or HR 5983, and
     a comparison between HR 5983 and HR 2772 and S 2813,
     can be obtained from:   tap@essential.org

     For additional information, contact the American
     Library Association at:  202/547-4440
     ====================================================

HR 5983 was scheduled for a Senate vote on friday, but it has since been
held off the Senate calendar by anonymous Senate republicans.  The
Senate leadership is trying to find who is holding the bill up, and why.
If the "holds" on the bill aren't resolved in a few days, the bill will
die, deferring action until next year at the earliest.


WHAT YOU CAN DO

If you support this important access broadening legislation, contact the
Senate leadership to urge action on the bill this year.  Since Congress
plans to adjourn this week, telephone calls are the preferred method for
making your views known.  [At this point, a single telephone call to the
right Senate office might make the difference.]

The current bill number and name is:

     HR 5983, the GPO Electronic Information Enhancement Act

Important telephone numbers to call are:

          SENATE

          Republican Leader
          Senator Robert J Dole (KA)         202/224-6521

          Assistant Republican Leader
          Senator Alan K. Simpson            202/224-3424

          Democratic Whip
          Senator Wendell H. Ford            202/224-4343


Any Senate office can be reached at:         202/224-3121

---------------------------------------------------------------
James Love                         voice:    215/658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project            fax:      call
12 Church Road                     internet: love@essential.org
Ardmore, PA  19003
From: Noah.Wood@f14.n284.z1.fidonet.org (Noah Wood)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:57:00 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:284/14 - The X Project, Springfield MO

Wednesday September 23 1992, Mike Godwin writes to All:

 MG> What questions do you have? Please post them here, or send them to me at
 MG> mnemonic@eff.org.

Mike :

Here are some that I often see asked :

1)  Can a logon message stating certain conditionals to logging on to a BBS (e.g. Can't be a gov't agent, Can't work for the SPA, etc.) provide any type of legal protection against the evidence obtained by people logging on to the BBS w/o a warrant?

2)  Can any sort of disclaimer stating that the sysops of the BBS are not responsible for it's content offer any type of legal protection, or is the mere size of a BBS sufficent to show that the sysop is not aware of the activities going on? (I believe the courts decided something like this in Cubby v. Compuserve but I haven't had a chance to read over it yet.)

3)  Is the sysop of a BBS responsible for the content of the private E-Mail messages?

4)  (This one is from personal experience) If ones system is seized legally, however the information contained therein is encrypted, can the person be legally compelled to decrypt it?

I have had these questions asked of me, and I am not entirely sure of the answers. Any insights you have would be appreciated.

====
 Noah Wood
 International Data Security, Inc.
 FidoNet : 1:284/14           internet : noah@p0.f14.n284.z1.fidonet.org
 X-Net   : 255:417/1          Data/Fax : (417)887-2663


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!284!14!Noah.Wood
Internet: Noah.Wood@f14.n284.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:01:04 GMT

alex@otis (The Console DJ) writes:

> >Civil forfeitures are a serious problem, as is paying informants for
> >criminal information (sometimes paying them by failing to prosecute
> >them for crimes they have committed.) This problem grows even worse
> >when search and seizure are based on hearsay evidence from such a
> >"confidential" paid informant whose name never appears in the records.

> Wasn't there a thing in the Constitution that gave you the right to face 
> whoever is accussing you of a crime??   I'm wrong, huh?

'Fraid so.  The rational behind civil forfeiture is that, since you're
never directly accused of a crime, the rights you would have in a 
criminal court are irrelevant.  Civil rights are, of course, already
largely meaningless, so you're without a leg to stand on.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western
   religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
   Western science." -- Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:37:20 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <1992Sep28.032900.3929@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
:In article <Bv91on.7zB@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
:>In alt.irc article <Bv7L19.DrE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
:>:Of course if you really like that law, then perhaps someone ought to
:>:mention something about the "electronic communications monitoring"
:>:bill in Congress right now.  The FBI/CIA want BBS and USENET/Internet/
:>:bitnet providers to implement some way for the FBI to monitor all
:>:communications going through those sites from a remote monitoring
:>:station.  The penalty for service providers' noncompliance would
:>:be either $10,000 or $100,000 per day (I forget which).
:>
:>Is this urban legend, or some adjunct to the FBI digital telephony bill?
:
:The $10,000-per-day penalty is specified in the bill.

Yes, but which bill?  I hadn't heard anything before this about the
FBI digital telephone-tapping bill applying to bulletin boards.  This
sounds like they want the same tapping rights to be implemented by
computer service providers that they're after from digital telephone
echanges.  I'm trying to find out of there's *another* bill here that
hasn't been publicised or if the person I was quoting was merely
giving garbled details of the FBI telephone-tapping bill.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Organization: OSF Research Institute
	<MACRAKIS.92Sep25105810@lakatos.osf.org>
	<1992Sep25.195032.2005@csc.ti.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:27:12

In article <MACRAKIS.92Sep25105810@lakatos.osf.org>, I said:

     ...Just because a patent has been issued by the Patent Office
     does NOT mean that the patent is enforceable.  It means that the
     Patent Office cannot find any reason that it wouldn't be.  To
     enforce the patent, the patent-holder must then sue...and win in
     court....

In article <1992Sep25.195032.2005@csc.ti.com> rowlands@ra.csc.ti.com
     (Jon Rowlands) replies:

   Similarly you only get a speeding ticket if a policeman catches
   you. People often speed and hope not to get caught, but sometimes
   they do.

This is an incorrect analogy.  I said that many patents are not
_enforceable_, not that they are not _enforced_.  The analogy to
speeding tickets would be that most speeding tickets were thrown out
if you challenged them in court.

   Merely the threat of litigation is often a strong enough deterrent to using
   a patented construction, whether the patent is "reasonable" or not. I don't
   think you can argue that any unreasonable patent should just be ignored,
   because people will get hurt that way.

I never suggested that unreasonable patents be ignored.  The Patent
Office should improve its examination procedures, and unreasonable
patents should indeed be questioned.

	-s
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd