Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH][RFC] per isr in_progress markers"
• Previous message: Hugh Dickins: "Re: Odd problem with ACPI and i386 kernel"
• Next in thread: Pavel Machek: "Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
• Reply: Pavel Machek: "Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
[...]
> > APM, and I pressed the shift key every few minutes,
> > therefore no powersafe.
>
> That still means APM bios calls when idle, right?

Yes, you are rigth.
But again, with Byte Unix version 4.1 I got much
more intersting result with no "strange" numbers,
I tried that test few hours ago,.
I know I can disable APM from both the kernel and the BIOS but I'd like to test the kernel I use in "daily" usage. What do you think about it? Do you suggest me to use a different configuration when I run the test?
And, what are the "best" benchmark?
I use dbench, LMbench, and Unix Bench Ver4.1.

Cheers {ciao},
           Paolo

-- 
Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org 
Powered by Outblaze
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH][RFC] per isr in_progress markers"
• Previous message: Hugh Dickins: "Re: Odd problem with ACPI and i386 kernel"
• Next in thread: Pavel Machek: "Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
• Reply: Pavel Machek: "Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:15 EST