Need higher resolution times for linpack benchmark

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Dec 13 2009, Delbert Franz wrote:
>On Friday 11 December 2009, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> 
>> On a slightly different note, if your running an archaic synthetic
>> benchmark that completes at the resolution of your timing routines,
>> then you might consider the merits of said benchmark.  That is, 
>> change the 100x100 matrix size to 1000x1000 or larger as needed.
>
>Yes, Steve, the benchmark may be archaic in the eyes of all the 
>"youngsters", but it is not archaic because here is a report that just 
>came out last month: 
>
>http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.ps

It's archaic, and there is no way that I am a "youngster"! I agree with
Steve that most uses of it are just plain crap.  However, I agree with
you that it still has its uses.

When I was benchmarking supercomputers, I included it (with a variety of
sizes, if I recall), as one of a suite of benchmarks, and ran it both in
serial and with one copy on each processor.  Several vendors commented
that it could be vastly improved, to which my response was that I was
using it as a baseline test of the compiler's optimisation on typical
antiquated code.  I also included similar tests of the BLAS and LAPACK,
which I also ran in serial and parallel, to see what the tuned libraries
delivered.  The differences were as you would expect :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.