[comp.benchmarks] c.b archives

de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (04/11/91)

In article <1991Apr10.200334.19846@nas.nasa.gov>, eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>
>I would archive c.b. but I can't.
>Dave, we should have made some provisions for this.....

I'm in the same boat.  I'd keep archives myself, if I could.  Perhaps
someone would be willing to "donate" some anonymous ftp disk space for
a comp.benchmarks archive.  This is the way the elisp archive at tut
is run.

Surely somebody's got a couple meg to spare.  Just rm a few of those
X-rated GIF's...

If we did get space, how should the archive be organized?  Batches of
articles, e.g., monthly?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	  It will be a great day when our schools have
Martin Marietta Energy Systems    all the money they need and the Air Force
Workstation Support               has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.

eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/11/91)

In article <1991Apr11.120601.12106@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes:
>I'm in the same boat.  I'd keep archives myself, if I could.  Perhaps
>someone would be willing to "donate" some anonymous ftp disk space for
>a comp.benchmarks archive.

Disk space isn't the issue for me.  I've terabytes of a mass storage system
I can use.  I've also arranged for cooperative agreements for companies
to donate disk space openly (the electronic server daemon which can answer
queries on computer graphics kindly donated by DEC (WRL) check this out
if you want to see).  Very similar to netlib/nbslib, etc.  NASA is a bit
sticky about anonymous FTP (a US Government [for you taxpayers] we work on
some "sensitive" things here, especially when it comes to [deep voice]
"foreign powers"), but I thread the ins and outs (this is close to an "in").

No, the problem I have is what goes into an archive.  I think simple
queries (Where can I get <obvious benchmark>) should be left out.
"Me, too." posts as well.  No, the issue is time and quality of what
goes in.  And I think a little bit of consensus.  I'm not for archiving
all data.  I'd like to see some turn over so I can see progress
[like people saying "I promise to summarize" and never do].

I keep all kinds of benchmarks, results, papers, and even tutorial
session video tapes.  And I abide by non-disclosure
agreements to NOT reveal results (or even vendor discussions).
You know who you guys are.  I spent 3 months at 7 different companies.
The problem is that this is such a sensitive/competitive area.  Perhaps
the readers don't want such "heavy handed" archive (e.g., freedom to ask
"dumb" questions [I don't think they are pmud], maybe some one wants to
count the number of Whetstone request queries) .

So that's why I don't archive c.b. (Time, quality, and lack of consensus)

Remember: The answer is "42."

--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

de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (04/12/91)

In article <1991Apr11.164050.16935@nas.nasa.gov>, eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>
>No, the problem I have is what goes into an archive.  I think simple
>queries (Where can I get <obvious benchmark>) should be left out.
>"Me, too." posts as well.  No, the issue is time and quality of what
>goes in.  And I think a little bit of consensus.  I'm not for archiving
>all data.  I'd like to see some turn over so I can see progress
>[like people saying "I promise to summarize" and never do].

I was thinking of a comp.benchmarks archive, i.e., archiving messages
posted to comp.benchmarks.  Sure, it'd be nice to have a hierarchical
archive of source code, results, etc.  But that's a *lot* of work (I
know, I've done it), whereas a simple c.b archive could be trivially
automated.  If the fancy archive is too much work, and the trivial
archive isn't good enough, then we won't have *any* archive.  I'd much
rather have a trivial archive than no archive at all.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	  It will be a great day when our schools have
Martin Marietta Energy Systems    all the money they need and the Air Force
Workstation Support               has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.