* Results 2.6.17 vs 2.6.19
@ 2007-01-11 16:44 Steven Scholz
2007-01-12 10:17 ` Steven Scholz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Steven Scholz @ 2007-01-11 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-rt-users
Hi all,
I tried to reproduce the results shown on
http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cyclictest
So I ran
cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -n -l 10000 and
cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -l 10000
on my emdedded x86 Celeron, 600MHz using 2.6.17-rt3 and 2.6.19-rt15. Funny
enough the older version seems to be better:
2.6.17-rt3 4 33 10
2.6.19-rt15 9 31 19
2.6.17-rt3 4 35 19
2.6.19-rt15 16 38 29
2.6.17-rt3 11 34 22
2.6.19-rt15 27 55 42
2.6.17-rt3 24 47 33
2.6.19-rt15 41 100 56
Is there a known explanation?
Think I try to test some 2.6.20-rt tomorrow ...
--
Steven
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Results 2.6.17 vs 2.6.19
2007-01-11 16:44 Results 2.6.17 vs 2.6.19 Steven Scholz
@ 2007-01-12 10:17 ` Steven Scholz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Steven Scholz @ 2007-01-12 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Scholz; +Cc: linux-rt-users
Hi,
I wrote:
> So I ran
>
> cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -n -l 10000 and
> cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -l 10000
>
> on my emdedded x86 Celeron, 600MHz using 2.6.17-rt3 and 2.6.19-rt15. Funny
> enough the older version seems to be better:
>
>
> 2.6.17-rt3 24 47 33
> 2.6.19-rt15 41 100 56
> ...
> Is there a known explanation?
>
> Think I try to test some 2.6.20-rt tomorrow ...
2.6.20-rc4-rt3 is similar to 2.6.19 thus still slower then 2.6.17 ...
--
Steven
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-01-12 10:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-01-11 16:44 Results 2.6.17 vs 2.6.19 Steven Scholz
2007-01-12 10:17 ` Steven Scholz
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.