> > On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, cjs wrote:
> >
> > > > *******
> > > > Results
> > > > *******
> > > >
> > > > Pipe-based Context Switching Test || 3007.4 -> 4804.9 +59.77%
> > > > Pipe Throughput Test || 18574.4 -> 18774.0 +1.07%
> > > > Execl Throughput Test || 60.9 -> 61.4 +0.82%
> > > [stuff deleted]
> > >
>
> Sounds to me like you are making an good effort to have simular
> testing conditions every time. =)
For a non-official benchmark, thats pretty damm good. Even
cleaner then my compile tests-- I may shutdown unneded proci, but
I don't clean reboot for a compile (even though I _DO_ time it. bah)
>
> > Each test is run 20 times (10 for the most time-consuming). If I find the
> > time, I will add the calculation of the standard deviation.
>
> I would be interested in seeing that. Its all fine and well to say
> that task switching times or something has increased + or - 0.82% over
> the previous version, however when there haven't been any changes that
> could make a difference in such a thing, then you have to figre that
> you are actually detecting something else.
Taking the above oft-quoted numbers, pipe-based context switching
went up by ~60%. Changes in other numbers _WILL_ occur, simply because
the kernel has changed. Things are different. the .0x% changes in the
timings would be best described as the secondary effects of the major
patches. Even one extra clause in the task switcher.... (shiver)
how many times would that be evoked? How about tossing an extra
line of code into the tty driver? Or the memory managment?
Would that not affect the execution of floating point math? It would,
if only by 1% or so. The 20 (or 10) run testing eliminates most of the
noise (50-100 would be better, but, as he said, it allready runs 4 hours)
On the same idea, Is it possible that you could nuke the results
of tests that are < 2% (a good number) simply because most changes
of .02% Don't affect anyone. Full figures on request or something,
but noise level changes are just eating bandwidth.
BTW: Earlier tests had a lot of HUGE negative %s, like -50 or -200%
any comments? Changes that big on the - side should have evoked some
reaction :) I'll go hunting through old mail sometime today or
tomorrow to see if I can find what specific things changed.
Anyway, Thanks for the numbers (Hey, I don't have to get locked
out of MY system for 4-5 hours! Thanks!)
chaos@dynamic.ip.don't.reply Guess what? I really _DO_ speak for my
Dan Merillat / Harik A'ttar system. And if you share my opinions,
in00621@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu you should seek professional help.