From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:28:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:28:07 -0500 Received: from c17870.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:10460 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:28:06 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: linux kernel mailing list Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.65-mm3,4 with contest Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:39:11 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303241639.11728.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anticipatory scheduler tested... no significant difference from 2.5.65-mm2 CFQ scheduler shows some fluctuations in results. At first I thought it was a mem leak because they were getting longer, but then they decreased again. Results are not consistent enough to give meaningful benchmark results at the moment. Still trying to track down what happened. The only thing I can say with certainty is read load is faster than the AS (108 seconds v 122), and mem load is a little faster (98 v 102). Con