From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S265876AbUBJNjH (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:39:07 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265898AbUBJNjG
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:39:06 -0500
Received: from [212.5.174.154] ([212.5.174.154]:4571 "EHLO zelcom.ru")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265876AbUBJNjC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:39:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:33:37 +0300
Message-ID: <871xp3hxe6.wl@canopus.ns.zel.ru>
From: Samium Gromoff <deepfire@sic-elvis.zel.ru>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: Samium Gromoff <deepfire@sic-elvis.zel.ru>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [TEST] 2.4 vs 2.6.2 vs 2.6.2-mm1 vs 2.6.2-rc3-mm1
In-Reply-To: <4028D450.4030504@cyberone.com.au>
References: <873c9kz4et.wl@canopus.ns.zel.ru>
	<4028D450.4030504@cyberone.com.au>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

At Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:53:36 +1100,
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Samium Gromoff wrote:
[snip]
> >		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?
Right.

> The test is interesting, I'll have to try it. Does it
> resemble a workload you're interested in?
Basically, yes.

> 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?
Everything else was basically idle.
The test script generated something like 15 rows of text,
which hardly could be considered noticeable...

> Thanks
> Nick

regards, Samium Gromoff