Benchmark results from resp1 trivial response time test
From: Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
[...]
Quoted 3 lines
run this version I'd like to see the result. I believe I had to use the "-l" patch option to ignore blank mismatches to get this to work, and I've cleaned up another mailing funny as well.
Hi Bill,
here the results agains 2.5.41-mm2C (2.5.41-mm2 + Con patch "vmscan.c")
Starting 1 CPU run with 250 MB RAM, minimum 5 data points at 20 sec intervals
_____________ delay ms. ____________
Test low high median average S.D. ratio
noload 113.648 114.508 113.707 113.861 0.000 1.000
smallwrite 116.054 180.420 117.924 130.525 0.028 1.146
largewrite 114.019 179.770 120.451 134.021 0.028 1.177
cpuload 106.590 162.893 107.075 118.080 0.025 1.037
spawnload 106.574 164.898 107.490 118.671 0.026 1.042
8ctx-mem 7767.843 16917.625 8994.265 10906.788 3.844 95.790
2ctx-mem 6515.450 18273.101 10344.575 11217.755 4.822 98.5218ctx-mem and 2ctx-mem show "bad" performance.
Do you think is it possible to apply the patch on the top of 2.5.42-mm2 ?
Ciao,
Paolo
Signature · 4 lines
Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org Powered by Outblaze
Quoted 21 lines · Paolo Ciarrocchi
From: Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
[...]Quoted 3 lines
run this version I'd like to see the result. I believe I had to use the "-l" patch option to ignore blank mismatches to get this to work, and I've cleaned up another mailing funny as well.
Hi Bill,
here the results agains 2.5.41-mm2C (2.5.41-mm2 + Con patch "vmscan.c")Starting 1 CPU run with 250 MB RAM, minimum 5 data points at 20 sec intervals
_____________ delay ms. ____________ Test low high median average S.D. ratio noload 113.648 114.508 113.707 113.861 0.000 1.000 smallwrite 116.054 180.420 117.924 130.525 0.028 1.146 largewrite 114.019 179.770 120.451 134.021 0.028 1.177 cpuload 106.590 162.893 107.075 118.080 0.025 1.037 spawnload 106.574 164.898 107.490 118.671 0.026 1.042 8ctx-mem 7767.843 16917.625 8994.265 10906.788 3.844 95.790 2ctx-mem 6515.450 18273.101 10344.575 11217.755 4.822 98.521
Quoted 2 lines
8ctx-mem and 2ctx-mem show "bad" performance.
Do you think is it possible to apply the patch on the top of 2.5.42-mm2 ?
I haven't tried it yet, but I'm interested in your result, since my 2.5.41-mm2v result was actually better then plain -mm2. I am just building some new test stuff on an SMP machine so I can compare uni and SMP performance under load, and I'll look at 2.5.42 tonight or tomorrow.
My reference machine was a 96MB machine, if you're really curious about this you could boot with mem=96m (or 128m) and rerun the test. In any case I have the kids tonight, if I get some time I'll try it, otherwise tomorrow.
Signature · 3 lines
bill davidsen <[email protected]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.