Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

jogi
2002-01-13T18:11:37Z

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:51:04AM -0700, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 04:18:23PM +0100, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 09:52:09AM -0700, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 04:07:14PM +0100, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:
> > > > I did my usual compile testings (untar kernel archive, apply patches,
> > > > make -j<value> ...
> > >
> > > If I understand your test,
> > > you are testing different loads - you are compiling kernels that may differ
> > > in size and makefile organization, not to mention different layout on the
> > > file system and disk.
> >
> > No, I use a script which is run in single user mode after a reboot. So
> > there are only a few processes running when I start the script (see
> > attachment) and the jobs should start from the same environment.
>
> But your description makes it sound like you do
> untar kernel X
> apply patches Y
> make -j Tree
>
> I'm sorry if I'm getting you wrong, but each of these steps is
> variable.
> Even if X and Y are the same each time, "Tree" is different.

X and Y are the same. But I don't really get why this is still
"different" ... If you think this could be because of the fs
fragmentation then I will enhance my test. I think I have a spare
partition somewhere which I can format each time before untar the
kernel sources and so on. But why can I reproduce the results then?
Ok, not exactly but the results do get close ...

Furthermore I am timing not only the make -j<value> but also the
complete untar and applying of patches. So basically I am timing the
following:

tar xvf linux-x.y.z.tar
patch -p0 < some_patches
cd linux; cp ../config-x.y.z .config
make oldconfig dep
make -j $PAR bzImage modules

and afterwards

cd .. ; rm -rf linux

and start again. Its just the same as doing 'rpm --rebuild' with

MAKE=make -j $PAR

> The test should be
> reboot
> N times
> make clean
> time make -j Tree
>
> Am I misunderstaning your test?

No, but I don't understand why this should make any difference. I do not
propose my way of testing as *the* benchmark. Its just a benchmark of
something which I do most of the time on my system (compiling) in an
extreme way ...

Kind regards,

Jogi

--

Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there?

<< Calvin & Hobbes >>