Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41

Con Kolivas
2002-09-28T23:54:36Z

Quoting Paolo Ciarrocchi <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>:

> noload:
> Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> 2.4.19 133.07 98% 1.00
> 2.4.19 133.16 98% 1.00
> 2.4.19 135.43 97% 1.02
> 2.5.38-mm2 138.19 97% 1.04
> 2.5.38-mm2 138.47 96% 1.04
> 2.5.38-mm2 139.54 96% 1.05
> 2.5.39 138.30 96% 1.04
> 2.5.39 138.63 96% 1.04
> 2.5.39 139.99 96% 1.05
>
> 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

IO Load, 2.5.39 is faster than 2.4.19 and _appears_ slower than 2.5.38-mm2 but
has no statistically significant difference; This is probably a type 2 error
(meaning more samples are required). Paolo if you could perform three more runs
on these two kernels it would help discriminate for those in the crowd who need
firm proof.

Mem Load, 2.5.39 is faster than 2.4.19 and same as 2.5.38-mm2

Note that for the results to be useful, they need to be run back to back on the
same system as you seem to have done. If you use your machine between runs for
something else, it can and probably will affect any further results.

Con