Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest

• Next message: Filip Van Raemdonck: "Re: openbkweb-0.0"
• Previous message: Con Kolivas: "[BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• In reply to: Con Kolivas: "[BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• Next in thread: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• Reply: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
>
> io_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03

These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.

-- 
Jens Axboe
-
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: Filip Van Raemdonck: "Re: openbkweb-0.0"
• Previous message: Con Kolivas: "[BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• In reply to: Con Kolivas: "[BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• Next in thread: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• Reply: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:14 EST