While not I/O intensive, the kernel compilation still needs to fetch a reasonably large amount of sources from the disk and write back different compilation artifacts in the process. Therefore, a slow disk [especially a very slow one] can skew the results -> kernel compilation is not 100% relevant as a CPU benchmark. Couldn’t find the exact point where I said it’s “I/O intensive” in my article, can you please point the erroneous phrase so I can fix it?

Please also note I’m just aggregating data from different sources, so you may want to consider these statements as pertaining to their respective authors, not to *me*.

Please feel free to come up with more relevant information and point to the place where we could see the “more accurate” data you are referring to.

I would appreciate in the future if you could avoid ad hominem attacks and stick to the facts! Thanks.

In many cases EBS will get worse performance than local instance storage for disk I/O.

Not to mention, the GeekBench folks were not using industry standard utilities, but their own in-house benchmarking utility. The validity of a software benchmark called GeekBench that is supposedly cross-platform should be questioned. Scheduling and device drivers work differently across operating systems.

The amount of inaccuracy in your assessment probably means that you shouldn’t make them, at least until you get a little more experience with the field. You are right about one thing though, benchmarking the cloud is not simple.