From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263277AbVGOMoR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:44:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263294AbVGOMoJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:44:09 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:31418 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263277AbVGOMnJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:43:09 -0400 Message-ID: <42D7B100.2010308@tmr.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:50:08 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: ck list , linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark References: <200507122110.43967.kernel@kolivas.org> <200507122202.39988.kernel@kolivas.org> <42D55562.3060908@tmr.com> <200507141021.55020.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200507141021.55020.kernel@kolivas.org> 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 Con Kolivas wrote: >On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > >>Con Kolivas wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote: >>> >>> >>>>for audio and video this would seem to be a fairly simple scaleing factor >>>>(or just doing a fixed amount of work rather then a fixed percentage of >>>>the CPU worth of work), however for X it is probably much more >>>>complicated (is the X load really linearly random in how much work it >>>>does, or is it weighted towards small amounts with occasional large >>>>amounts hitting? I would guess that at least beyond a certin point the >>>>liklyhood of that much work being needed would be lower) >>>> >>>> >>>Actually I don't disagree. What I mean by hardware changes is more along >>>the lines of changing the hard disk type in the same setup. That's what I >>>mean by careful with the benchmarking. Taking the results from an athlon >>>XP and comparing it to an altix is silly for example. >>> >>> >>I'm going to cautiously disagree. If the CPU needed was scaled so it >>represented a fixed number of cycles (operations, work units) then the >>effect of faster CPU would be shown. And the total power of all attached >>CPUs should be taken into account, using HT or SMP does have an effect >>of feel. >> >> > >That is rather hard to do because each architecture's interpretation of fixed >number of cycles is different and this doesn't represent their speed in the >real world. The calculation when interbench is first run to see how many >"loops per ms" took quite a bit of effort to find just how many loops each >different cpu would do per ms and then find a way to make that not change >through compiler optimised code. The "loops per ms" parameter did not end up >being proportional to cpu Mhz except on the same cpu type. > > > >>Disk tests should be at a fixed rate, not all you can do. That's NOT >>realistic. >> >> > >Not true; what you suggest is another thing to check entirely, and that would >be a valid benchmark too. What I'm interested in is what happens if you read >or write a DVD ISO image for example to your hard disk and what this does to >interactivity. This sort of reading or writing is not throttled in real life. > Of course it is. At least the read. It's limited to the speed needed to either play (watch) the image or to burn it. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979