From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265851AbUBJMyO (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:54:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265855AbUBJMyO (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:54:14 -0500 Received: from mail-02.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.34]:916 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265851AbUBJMyL (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:54:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4028D450.4030504@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:53:36 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samium Gromoff CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [TEST] 2.4 vs 2.6.2 vs 2.6.2-mm1 vs 2.6.2-rc3-mm1 References: <873c9kz4et.wl@canopus.ns.zel.ru> In-Reply-To: <873c9kz4et.wl@canopus.ns.zel.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Samium Gromoff wrote: >Here are the tests i`ve promised, and sorry for the delays. > >The test machine was a pIII-600/192M RAM/10krpm SCSI drive. > >There was three different loads. > >the test app whose run time was measured was: > >time find / -xdev | \ > bzip2 --compress | bzip2 --decompress | \ > bzip2 --compress | bzip2 --decompress | \ > bzip2 --compress | bzip2 --decompress | \ > cat > /dev/null > >the loads were: > >Load 1: > boot options: mem=32M init=/bin/bash > swapon -a > run the test > >Load 2: > boot options: mem=48M init=/bin/bash > swapon -a > run the test > >Load 3: > boot options: mem=48M > usual X session, with lots of terminals, emacs and stuff > the test was run from one of the x terminal emulators > >the kernels were: > 2.4.20-pre9, 2.6.2 -- no comments > 2.6.2-rc3-mm1 -- that one didn`t include the Namesys VM patches > 2.6.2--mm1 -- that one _did_ include the Namesys VM patches > >results: > > > 2.4.20-pre9 2.6.2 2.6.2-mm1 2.6.2-rc3-mm1 > >Load 1 > run1 6.27 9.14 9.42 10.52 > >Load 2 > run1 3.29 4.42 3.40 3.45 > run2 3.28 4.37 3.39 3.45 > >Load 3 > run1 4.42 8.39 18.26 > > >short summary: > > 2.4 is faster. > > What are the units? minutes.seconds? The test is interesting, I'll have to try it. Does it resemble a workload you're interested in? It looks like the -mm kernels might have something other than Nikita's and my VM patches that is affecting times. Your Load 3 looks quite bad. Does it give decent results? Is it possibly because the other stuff is getting better treatment, do you think? Thanks Nick