Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41

Con Kolivas
2002-09-29T09:11:44Z

Quoting Paolo Ciarrocchi <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>:

> From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
> [...]
> > > process_load:
> > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> > > 2.4.19 200.43 60% 1.51
> > > 2.4.19 203.11 60% 1.53
> > > 2.4.19 203.97 59% 1.53
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 194.42 69% 1.46
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 195.19 69% 1.47
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 207.36 64% 1.56
> > > 2.5.39 190.44 70% 1.43
> > > 2.5.39 191.37 70% 1.44
> > > 2.5.39 193.60 69% 1.45
> > >
> > > io_load:
> > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> > > 2.4.19 486.58 27% 3.66
> > > 2.4.19 593.72 22% 4.46
> > > 2.4.19 637.61 21% 4.79
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 232.35 61% 1.75
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 237.83 57% 1.79
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 274.39 50% 2.06
> > > 2.5.39 242.98 57% 1.83
> > > 2.5.39 294.52 50% 2.21
> > > 2.5.39 328.01 42% 2.46
> > >
> > > mem_load:
> > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> > > 2.4.19 172.24 78% 1.29
> > > 2.4.19 174.74 77% 1.31
> > > 2.4.19 174.87 77% 1.31
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 165.53 82% 1.24
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 170.00 80% 1.28
> > > 2.5.38-mm2 171.96 79% 1.29
> > > 2.5.39 167.92 81% 1.26
> > > 2.5.39 170.80 80% 1.28
> > > 2.5.39 172.68 79% 1.30
> >
> > Quick statistical analysis:
> > Noload, 2.5.39 is slower than 2.4.19 and same as 2.5.38-mm2
> >
> > ProcessLoad, 2.5.39 is slower than 2.4.19 and same as 2.5.38-mm2
> Why ?
> If look at the numbers I assume that 2.5.39 is faster then 2.4.19.
> Am I missing something?

Sorry, typo should read 2.5.39 is faster than 2.4.19 and same as 2.5.38-mm2

> I'll run further test...

Not really needed. I'm convinced the difference is there, and the people who can
act on the data probably will be happy with that much information too. Some are
less satisfied with the quality of the data unless there is firm statistical
data to support the hypothesis. Your time is better spent on other things.

Con