From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:37:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:37:58 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:20755 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:37:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest From: Robert Love To: Stan Bubrouski Cc: Con Kolivas , linux kernel mailing list In-Reply-To: <3DF621D0.6040505@ccs.neu.edu> References: <200212102245.19862.conman@kolivas.net> <3DF621D0.6040505@ccs.neu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1039545941.1831.849.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 10 Dec 2002 13:45:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:18, Stan Bubrouski wrote: > I know this has been brought up before, but > these don't seem to mean much unless you > include 2.4.20 in the comaprison. Comparing this to 2.4 achieves nothing because so much changed. The point of these benchmarks are not marketing, but to find improvements or regressions from one version to the next and find out what caused them. Comparing the kernel to 2.4 has some uses (i.e. finding micro-ops) but Con's mission is much different (and imo more useful). Robert Love