From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZpfK-0006vP-B9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:43:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZpfF-0006nq-Mn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:43:18 -0400 Received: from gmplib-02.nada.kth.se ([130.237.222.242]:31270 helo=shell.gmplib.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZpfF-0006nd-G2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:43:13 -0400 References: <8661yvqasu.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> From: Torbjorn Granlund Sender: tg@gmplib.org Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:43:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Artyom Tarasenko's message of "Tue\, 7 May 2013 23\:29\:20 +0200") Message-ID: <86k3nacvps.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Reporting Heisenbugs in qemu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Artyom Tarasenko Cc: qemu-devel Artyom Tarasenko writes: Do I read it correct that qemu-system-ppc64 with the slowdown factor of 33 is ~3 times faster than qemu-system-sparc64 with the slowdown factor of 96 ? You read it correctly. But please see the caveat at the table end. Do they both use Debian Wheezy guest? You have a remark that ppc64 has problems with its clock. Was it taken into account when the slowdown factors were calculated? =20=20 The time of a job is computed as the difference between a time stamp made by the test system and the report time. The first time is affected by ppc64's slow clock, the latter is correct. A cron job sets the clock every 30 minutes, so the ppc time might be *overestimated* < 30 minutes. --=20 Torbj=C3=B6rn