Re: Measuring tools - top and interrupts

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 06:41 -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> 
> --- Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 13:45 -0700, Danial Thom
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I think the one thing we can surmise from
> > this
> > > thread is that you can't rely on kernel usage
> > > statistics to be accurate, as its likely that
> > > there are many, many cases that don't work
> > > properly. It was always wrong in 2.4 as well.
> > 
> > Once identified, problems tend to get fixed. 
> > This one will probably be
> > history soon.  You know the old saying
> > though... "There are lies, there
> > are _damn_ lies, and then there are
> > _statistics_".
> 
> The usefulness of statistics is a function of the
> breadth of understand of the person interpreting
> them. 
> 
> But I don't think that applies here, because we
> are not questioning the conclusions from the
> statistics, only the accuracy of the gathering.
> Its a completely different thing to say, for
> example, that population growth is due to too
> many babies when it might be immigration or a
> reduction in the death rate, than it is to say
> that the numbers gathered are simply wrong.
> 
> The truth is that you guys can't be bothered
> unless the numbers are so far off that its an
> embarrasment.

Hey, let's play hide and go fuck yourself.  Tag, you're it.

*plonk*

	-Mike