* My end user testing of 2.4.8-ish kernels
@ 2002-01-13 7:19 J Sloan
2002-01-13 7:30 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: J Sloan @ 2002-01-13 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I did some testing today on the mini-low-latency patch.
I must admit that I was totally biased towards it from the start.
While it certainly didn't hurt anything, the bottom line is that
after hours of mp3/dbench tests, I was unable to quantify any real
difference between 2.4.18-pre3 vanilla and with mini low latency.
They exhibit pretty much the same behaviour in terms of how much
dbench it takes to start hearing audio dropouts in xmms - they were
both smooth up to dbench 40, but started exhibiting sporadic audio
dropouts at dbench 64.
Out of curiosity I booted up 2.4.18pre2-aa2 and found it a real gem.
To my pleasant suprise I was able to run dbench 128 without hearing
a _single_ audio dropout. (the dbench 128 result was 19.75 MB/sec)
With dbench 192 I did start to hear some occasional dropouts, but
they were generally short, e.g. 100ms or so.
In any event, all the 2.4.18-pre-ish kernels I tested today are much
better at this than e.g. 2.4.7 - at least on my hardware, I am now
getting excellent interactive performance under load without preempt
or low-latency patches, and that's a good thing.
IMHO the -aa kernel seems to the clear winner here -
Good for server use, good for desktop use...
Regards
jjs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: My end user testing of 2.4.8-ish kernels
2002-01-13 7:19 My end user testing of 2.4.8-ish kernels J Sloan
@ 2002-01-13 7:30 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-13 7:43 ` J Sloan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2002-01-13 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J Sloan; +Cc: linux-kernel
J Sloan wrote:
>
> I did some testing today on the mini-low-latency patch.
>
> I must admit that I was totally biased towards it from the start.
>
> While it certainly didn't hurt anything, the bottom line is that
> after hours of mp3/dbench tests, I was unable to quantify any real
> difference between 2.4.18-pre3 vanilla and with mini low latency.
> They exhibit pretty much the same behaviour in terms of how much
> dbench it takes to start hearing audio dropouts in xmms - they were
> both smooth up to dbench 40, but started exhibiting sporadic audio
> dropouts at dbench 64.
Oh well. I must have missed one.
> Out of curiosity I booted up 2.4.18pre2-aa2 and found it a real gem.
> To my pleasant suprise I was able to run dbench 128 without hearing
> a _single_ audio dropout. (the dbench 128 result was 19.75 MB/sec)
>
> With dbench 192 I did start to hear some occasional dropouts, but
> they were generally short, e.g. 100ms or so.
>
> In any event, all the 2.4.18-pre-ish kernels I tested today are much
> better at this than e.g. 2.4.7 - at least on my hardware, I am now
> getting excellent interactive performance under load without preempt
> or low-latency patches, and that's a good thing.
>
> IMHO the -aa kernel seems to the clear winner here -
>
the -aa kernel basically includes everything that's in the mini-ll
patch. If you merge -aa, you get mini-ll. Plus the one I missed :)
-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-13 7:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-01-13 7:19 My end user testing of 2.4.8-ish kernels J Sloan
2002-01-13 7:30 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-13 7:43 ` J Sloan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox