HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Giles' Manual Mania (Was - Re: About the 'F' in RTFM)
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:25:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep1.202539.17840
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug28.183824.110@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.172029.22760@news.eng.convex.com>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:
>|> [...]
>|> Mr. Giles apparently also labors under the misconception that a GUI
>|> is inherently a good thing.  They're not.  In fact, poor GUIs are
>|> a significant step backwards in both ease-of-use and modular software
>|> technologies in general.

>No, I was arguing against someone who was claiming that the bundled 
>UNIX environment was universally easier and more powerful than the
>alternatives.  For many applications, GUI *are* better - so they are
>a counterexample to the claims I was responding to.

No, you weren't, Jim.  You were arguing against someone who declined
to buy your repeated foolish claims that an operating system and
language which are used productively by hundreds of thousands of
people every day are totally useless and should be dumped for some
as yet to be named alternatives that are more powerful, easier to use,
and provide all the capabilities that people want.

We're still waiting, Jim.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: deanc@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Dean Cashen)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:15:05 GMT
Subject: Re: NeXT Computer question
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: comp.misc


At our site, there's a few NeXT groups, including:

  comp.soft-sys.nextstep
  comp.sys.next

Dean
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: wllarso@sandia.gov (William L Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Amdahl's Law? (was Re: Regression analysis)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:15:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep2.141548.10346
Distribution: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Sandia National Laboratories

In article <42239@ogicse.ogi.edu> borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes:
>It would be nice if SPEC could
>estimate the appropriate-dimensional Amdahl's Law surfaces for
>their benchmarks; if they ask me (REAL NICELY) I'll show them how 
>to do it.
>
>3. I use non-linear regression to predict supercomputer performance
>by fitting Amdahl's Law curves to benchmark data.

I may be dense, but what is Amdahl's Law?  (Brief descriptions only, there
is no need for large volumes).
From: borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Regression analysis
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:56:48 GMT
Distribution: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <Btwo88.4v0@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> jwreilly@mipos2.UUCP (Jeffrey Reilly) writes:
>...
>used a regression analysis to derive the following equation:  
>	SPECmark = (0.77 x mips) + (0.70 x mflops) - 3.27.   
Question: Where do the MIPS and MFLOPS numbers come from?

>SPEC's initial thought was to take the marketing philosophy that
>there is no such thing as bad publicity, and ignore the article. 
Is this "marketing philosophy" meant to imply that those in 
marketing have this philosophy?

>A SINGLE NUMBER FOR THE PRESS   
>SPEC has always acknowledged that system performance couldn't be
>accurately represented by a single number.  ...
> ... Only in consideration of the
>press, did SPEC generate a composite of the 10 numbers, the
>SPECmark.
Seems pretty inconsiderate to me to hold that performance can't
be accurately represented by a single number, then create one
"in consideration of the press."  Single numbers are created
because people ask for them.  Averages are created because
people don't trust peak speeds.  It would be nice if SPEC could
estimate the appropriate-dimensional Amdahl's Law surfaces for
their benchmarks; if they ask me (REAL NICELY) I'll show them how 
to do it.  In the absence of this kind of analysis, an average
(with appropriate confidence limits, which I can also show them
how to do) seems to be a pretty reasonable representation of relative
computer performance, especially when dealing with commercially-
successful systems which are, since they ARE commercially successful,
by nature balanced for reasonably common workloads.

I went through all this stuff several years ago; I went around and 
around with all of these issues and I found things that worked.
Admittedly, I was dealing with the simpler case of supercomputers:
CPU bound applications, performance measured in megaflops.  And I
was working in a marketing organization at the time.

>REGRESSION ANALYSIS   
>A regression analysis in some fields seems to be a reasonable way
>to estimate future values.  Horse racing, weather predicting, and
>computer performance predictions seem to fall outside the
>predictive capabilities of this tool.

1. For sprint races, where raw speed is the most important
factor, you can ALMOST make a profit by betting on the horse
(or DOG) with the lowest AVERAGE time for the given race 
length.  It has a considerably better expectation than the ball-
type lotteries, Las Vegas slot machines or buying call options
on Intel in a bear market.

2. Least squares techniques are one of many methods used in
computational fluid dynamics, including weather forecasting.

3. I use non-linear regression to predict supercomputer performance
by fitting Amdahl's Law curves to benchmark data.  It works.  It's
a little more complicated than the above-noted formula, but it works.
The more data points I have the better it works.  I can show other
people how to do it.  
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Wanted:gcc "benchmark source"for SpecMark;not gcc source
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:06:11 GMT

Due to the possibility of inadequecy of dhryston benchmark caused by
redundancies, I want to investigate the amount of redundancy in 
a highly intelligent(random unpredictable behaviour) of gcc.

There is little chance for an optimising compiler to remove the redundancy
of a responding system like the gcc, because we do not know the input
pattern before hand, unlike gcc or some scientific calculations.

It is not that the scientific calculations are not valid benchmark. I disagree
with Spec consortium decision to remove matrix benchmark because these
programming style is very important for scientists and engineers.
	The compiler is used as an advanced computer. If it can precompile
the problem before hand, fine, then we do not need to execute it. Just 
display it. Then it is just a question of how fast to display the result.
The amount of calculation will dramatically be reduced but the there is still
some conversion required.
	Anyway, it is a good test for how efficient a compiler supplied by
the vendor in removing redundant code, provided the user is willing to
wait to the results. Maybe it is faster to use non-optimized code, and run
the program even if the redundancy has not been completely removed.
 
Any info will be much appreciated. If not, I'll just find a sample
program and take the amount of time taken to compile it.
	It would be nice to correlate with SpecMark results, as close as 
possible for comparison purposes.

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet

Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1343 comp.ai.neural-nets:3350
From: jjb@sequent.com (Jeff Berkowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Q: How many backprops is a lot?
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:20:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Aug29.232050.29324
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

One popular algorithm for connectionist architectures (a.k.a.
"artificial neural networks", "ANNs") is backpropogation.  In a
typical backprop network, each unit ("neuron") has a transfer
function that is sigmoidal.  Common choices of sigmoidal functions
involve computing floating exponentials.  The "backward propogation"
pass has to do additional floating operations.

All this makes the simulation computationally expensive.  Since
interesting networks have lots of "neurons" and require thousands
of iterations to "train", performance matters.

I gather the right performance measure is "the backprop", which is
what you do to one unit in one "pass" (both forward and back.)  So
a single pass over a network with 100 units is 100 "backprops."
Correct me if I'm wrong about this (preferably in your email. :-)

Given this is the unit, how many backprops/second is "a lot" for
real implementations?

Real world experiences solicited.  Email me and I'll summarize.  Be
sure to say a bit about the implementation (simulator, what software,
on what machine, etc.)  I'm particularly interested in anybody who's
implemented something in hardware (components are available from a
few vendors.)  To simplify things, let's say other types of ANNs
aren't commensurate - backprop nets only.
-- 
Jeff Berkowitz, Sequent Computer Systems   jjb@sequent.com  uunet!sequent!jjb
From: guy@accept.ec.bull.fr (Guy Collombat)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Bench AIM
Keywords: AIM
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:55:08 GMT
Reply-To: guy@accept.frec.bull.fr (Guy Collombat)
Followup-To: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Bull S.A. Echirolles


Hi all!
A friend of mine had problem using the Suite III (AIM) V.3.1
She said:
On specific utilisation of the bench, simulating I/O on asynchonous lines, 
I got sometimes signals problems (More often when increasing the number of users).
Signals seems to be lost. Several conflicts were solved using the "sigaction" 
function instead of "signal". But some problem are still unsolved.
The signal which stoppes the processes "ttydrvr" and "vmdrvr" is lost.

Any idea?
ThanX for your help.
-- 
Guy Collombat .
Bull Unix Center . Echirolles . France
EMAIL : guy@accept.frec.bull.fr 
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: joelw@convex.com (Joel Williamson)
Subject: Re: Amdahl's Law? (was Re: Regression analysis)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:18:25 GMT
Distribution: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Sep2.141548.10346@cs.sandia.gov> wllarso@sandia.gov (William L Larson) writes:
>In article <42239@ogicse.ogi.edu> borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes:
>>It would be nice if SPEC could
>>estimate the appropriate-dimensional Amdahl's Law surfaces for
>>their benchmarks; if they ask me (REAL NICELY) I'll show them how 
>>to do it.
>>
>>3. I use non-linear regression to predict supercomputer performance
>>by fitting Amdahl's Law curves to benchmark data.
>
>I may be dense, but what is Amdahl's Law?  (Brief descriptions only, there
>is no need for large volumes).

In any system with two or more modes of operation, system performance is
dominated by the slowest mode.  Thus, in a scalar/vector system, scalar
performance dominates.  A parallel system is dominated by the
performance of the serial portion of a program.

Example:  

A program on a single scalar processor takes 100 seconds to
complete.  Imagine that an infinitely fast vector unit is added and that
half of the program can be vectorized.  Now the program takes 50 seconds
to complete, so performance only doubles even though half the program
runs in zero time.

Likewise, run the program on an MPP with 1024 processors.  Again
imagine that half the code can be parallelized, and you get the same
result as before.  This time you increased processing power by 3 orders
of magnitude and performance only doubled.  If you parallelize 99% of
the code, time drops to 1 second, so speedup on 1024 processors is a
factor of 100 -- serial performance dominates.

Best regards,

Joel Williamson
-- 

Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: gjlai@csie.nctu.edu.tw (Guan-Joe)
Subject: How to get the benchmarks of DASH system?
Organization: Computer Science & Information Engin., Chiao-Tung U, Taiwan, ROC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:51:06 GMT


Hi,
        Does anybody know where to find the benchmarks of DASH system,
including MP3D, LU, PTHOR, MAXFLOW, and MATMUL, in C language?
        If you know, please e-mail gjlai@csie.nctu.edu.tw.

        Thanks in advance.

                                        Guan-Joe Lai  gjlai@csie.nctu.edu.tw
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: arms@cs.UAlberta.CA (Bill Armstrong)
Subject: Re: Q: How many backprops is a lot?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:44:26 GMT

jjb@sequent.com (Jeff Berkowitz) writes:

>One popular algorithm for connectionist architectures (a.k.a.
>"artificial neural networks", "ANNs") is backpropogation.  In a
>typical backprop network, each unit ("neuron") has a transfer
>function that is sigmoidal.  Common choices of sigmoidal functions
>involve computing floating exponentials.  The "backward propogation"
>pass has to do additional floating operations.

>All this makes the simulation computationally expensive.  Since
>interesting networks have lots of "neurons" and require thousands
>of iterations to "train", performance matters.

I agree that the sigmoids make backpropagation expensive, but they are
usually done fast by table lookup, which involves using a discontinuous
approximation.

>I gather the right performance measure is "the backprop", which is
>what you do to one unit in one "pass" (both forward and back.)  So
>a single pass over a network with 100 units is 100 "backprops."
>Correct me if I'm wrong about this (preferably in your email. :-)

Connection updates per second (CUPS) is used.  This is more
meaningful, because the work a unit does depends on how many inputs it
has.

>Given this is the unit, how many backprops/second is "a lot" for
>real implementations?

>Real world experiences solicited.  Email me and I'll summarize.  Be
>sure to say a bit about the implementation (simulator, what software,
>on what machine, etc.)  I'm particularly interested in anybody who's
>implemented something in hardware (components are available from a
>few vendors.)  To simplify things, let's say other types of ANNs
>aren't commensurate - backprop nets only.

I think you could include the special case of ALNs in "backprop nets",
at least when you are discussing high speed implementations.  The
difference is that ALNs use only node functions of the form

 output = 1 iff w1*x1 + w2*x2 >=2,

where wi has one of two values 1, or 2, and xi is boolean.  The
derivatives that are backpropagated are not continuously-valued, but
rather just 0 or 1.  Since each pattern can be trained once in
combinational logic fashion, ALNs in parallel hardware will be able to
learn at rates around 25 million patterns per second.  If you express
this as CUPS in a 4095-node tree, this gives a value of 200 billion
CUPS (probably on one chip). This rate is also valid in cases where the
original problem has continuous rather than boolean values.

There are other considerations too, particularly if you want to use a
machine that can support large granularity parallelism: in particular
lazy evaluation of boolean logic.  It is better to work smarter rather
than faster.

If you want to try ALNs on your company's machines, you can email me
for instructions on how to ftp the atree software.

Bill
--
***************************************************
Prof. William W. Armstrong, Computing Science Dept.
University of Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H1
arms@cs.ualberta.ca Tel(403)492 2374 FAX 492 1071
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 3/17/92] PERFECT CLUB (3/28)	c.be FAQ
Keywords: who, what, where, when, why, how
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 11:25:10 GMT
Reply-To: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)

3	PERFECT	Club/Suite 				<This panel>
4
5	Performance Metrics
6	Temporary scaffold of New FAQ material
7	Music to benchmark by
8	Benchmark types
9	Linpack
10
11
12	Measurement Environments
13
14
15	12 Ways to Fool the Masses with Benchmarks
16	SPEC
17	Benchmark invalidation methods
18
19	WPI Benchmark
20	Equivalence
21	TPC
22
23
24
25	Ridiculously short benchmarks
26	Other miscellaneous benchmarks
27
28	References
1	Introduction to FAQ chain and netiquette
2	Benchmarking Concepts

PERFECT
(post-facto acronynm:
PERFormance Evaluation for Cost-effective Transformations)
Contact:	J. Larson (jlarson@csrd.uiuc.edu)
		Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
		305 Talbot Laboratory
		104 South Wright Street
		Urbana, Illinois 61801

PERFECT is a UI research effort oriented to supercomputers and parallel
processing.  It seeks real applications.

                   ^ A  
                s / \ r                
               m /   \ c              
              h /     \ h            
             t /       \ i          
            i /         \ t        
           r /           \ e      
          o /             \ c    
         g /               \ t  
        l /                 \ u
       A /                   \ r
        <_____________________> e   
                Language
From: uemura@isl.melco.co.jp (Joe Uemura)
Subject: realtime measurements in user mode
Organization: Mitsubishi Electric, Ofuna, Kanagawa, Japan
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:24:56 GMT

I am looking for realtime benchmarks which:

1) measure the regular things such as preemption latency, interrupt
latency, etc.,
2) run entirely in user-state, ie. do not require kernel modifications, 
3) run on various flavors of Unix

I would appreciate any pointers to either sources or descriptions of such
benchmarks. Also, I was wondering how much of (1) can be accomplished given
(2). This might explain the apparent dearth of benchmarks which possess the 
characteristics given above, specially when compared to the numerous general
processor performance benchmarks.

Thanks in advance,

Joe
From: vincent@riscee.pko.dec.com (Linda Chasey Vincent)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: RE: Request for info on sources of AIM/SpecMark
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:36:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

Dyung,

AIM is a proprietary benchmark suite and is licensed to a particular
site (not even corporate wide) by AIM Technology.  They do provide 
sources but it is illegal to distribute them.  They can be reached at
(800) 848-UNIX or UUCP benchinfo@aim.com.  

SPEC also has a licensing arrangement for distribution of their source
code which is managed through NCGA.  Dianne Dean is the contact there
and she can be reached as follows:

	Name:	Dianne Dean
	Phone:	703-698-9600 Ext 318
	Fax:	703-560-2752
	Email:	spec-ncga@cup.portal.com
	Mail:	SPEC
		c/o NCGA
		2722 Merrilee Drive, Suite 200
		Fairfax, VA 22031-4499

Hope this helps.

Regards.
Linda
-- 
Linda Chasey Vincent, M/L&CE SECG Performance Testing
Digital Equipment Corp., PKO3-1/D18 129 Parker Street, Maynard, MA 01746
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Amdahl's Law
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 17:25:47 GMT
Distribution: comp.benchmarks

In article <1992Sep2.141548.10346@cs.sandia.gov> wllarso@sandia.gov
(William L Larson) writes:
>I may be dense, but what is Amdahl's Law?  (Brief descriptions only, there
>is no need for large volumes).

I suggest reading the paper.  In fact one of the leading men in
parallel processing seems to think it should be re-read weekly (ak).
It is not particularly difficult, and very short.

%A Gene M. Amdahl
%T Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing
capabilities
%J AFIPS Proc. of the SJCC
%V 31
%D 1967
%P 483-485
%K grecommended91,
%K bmiya,
%K ak,
%X should be reread every week
%X Well known (infamous ?) Amdahl's law that suggests that if x %
of an algorithm is not parallelizable then the maximum speedup is 1/x.

And since you are at Sandia, I suggest trying "man amlaw" on UNICOS
and trying the amlaw command.

Its companion paper should also be read (even less technical).

%A D. L. Slotnick
%T Unconventional Systems
%J Proceedings AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference
%V 31
%D 1967
%P 477-481
%K grecommended,
%K btartar
%X The `Pro' side of the classic debate with Gene Amdahl on the future
of array and multi processors.  Rather inflammatory introduction.
Not a very technical article, but it should be read.  Short.

Daniel unfortunately passed away a few years ago.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
From: martins@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Martin Sandman 3562)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Looking for MSYNCS
Summary: Millions of Synchronization Per Second Benchmark
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:17:00 GMT
Organization: NCR (Torrey Pines Development Center)
Disclaimer: This posting does not neccessarily reflect the opinions of NCR.

I have seen a vidio tape in which Harld Stone proposes that a useful
standard measure of multiprocessing computer performance is MSYNS per
second, that is, Millions of Synchronizations per second. He explains
why MSYNCS establish the speed up limit for the number of processing
elements.  He makes a case for why test-and-set-lock would be slow
and cause memory contentions.  Then he introduces the Fetch-And-Add and
explains how FAA can be executed in parallel in a combining interprocessor
connection network.

Does anyone know of a benchmark designed to measure synchronizations
per second?  Please send me email and I will summarize.  Thanks.

	  -- Martin
-- 
======================================================================
= Martin D. Sandman                                  .........       =
= NCR Torrey Pines                                   ..x......       = 
= 11010 Torreyana Road    martins@sandiego.ncr.com   ....x....       =
= San Diego, CA 92121     Phone: 619-597-3562        .xx..xxx.       =
= U. S. A.                FAX:   619-597-3501        ......... ants  =
======================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: dyung@chpc.org (Dyung Le)
Subject: Request for info on sources of AIM/SpecMark
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:59:19 GMT


I need to get a hold of the source code for Specmark, especially the multi-
processor version as well as the AIM benchmark (I do not know whether AIM
is available in source form). I would greatly appreciate any pointer on
where to look, whom to talk to, etc. Thank you in advance.

-- 

Dyung Le,                           Center for High Performance Computing @WPI
Leader, System Research	            Suite 170, 293 Boston Post Road West, 
INTERNET: dyung@chpc.org            Marlborough, MA 01752 USA
From: sl0vv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: How to get SPEC benchmarks for testing a scheduling technique
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:15:18 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Hi,

    I am looking for SPEC benchmarks, or any other sites, where
I could get some C source programs which incorporate DoAcross
loops (cyclic dependencies) . I need them to perform testing of a
scheduling technique being done here. It would be better if they
are real time programs, however it's not a must.

Any information in this matter, would be of great help.

Kindly acknowledge at this e-mail address : ms@slow.cs.usu.edu

Thanks,
Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1338 comp.databases:6408 comp.databases.oracle:1418 comp.databases.theory:420