Messages in this thread | | | From | "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <> | Date | Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:00:45 +0800 | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41 |
| |
From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net> [...] > > process_load: > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > > 2.4.19 200.43 60% 1.51 > > 2.4.19 203.11 60% 1.53 > > 2.4.19 203.97 59% 1.53 > > 2.5.38-mm2 194.42 69% 1.46 > > 2.5.38-mm2 195.19 69% 1.47 > > 2.5.38-mm2 207.36 64% 1.56 > > 2.5.39 190.44 70% 1.43 > > 2.5.39 191.37 70% 1.44 > > 2.5.39 193.60 69% 1.45 > > > > io_load: > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > > 2.4.19 486.58 27% 3.66 > > 2.4.19 593.72 22% 4.46 > > 2.4.19 637.61 21% 4.79 > > 2.5.38-mm2 232.35 61% 1.75 > > 2.5.38-mm2 237.83 57% 1.79 > > 2.5.38-mm2 274.39 50% 2.06 > > 2.5.39 242.98 57% 1.83 > > 2.5.39 294.52 50% 2.21 > > 2.5.39 328.01 42% 2.46 > > > > mem_load: > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > > 2.4.19 172.24 78% 1.29 > > 2.4.19 174.74 77% 1.31 > > 2.4.19 174.87 77% 1.31 > > 2.5.38-mm2 165.53 82% 1.24 > > 2.5.38-mm2 170.00 80% 1.28 > > 2.5.38-mm2 171.96 79% 1.29 > > 2.5.39 167.92 81% 1.26 > > 2.5.39 170.80 80% 1.28 > > 2.5.39 172.68 79% 1.30 > > Quick statistical analysis: > Noload, 2.5.39 is slower than 2.4.19 and same as 2.5.38-mm2 > > ProcessLoad, 2.5.39 is slower than 2.4.19 and same as 2.5.38-mm2 Why ? If look at the numbers I assume that 2.5.39 is faster then 2.4.19. Am I missing something?
I'll run further test...
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/
| |