Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter T. Breuer" <> | Subject | Re: Interesting scheduling times - NOT | Date | Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:14:00 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
"A month of sundays ago Neil Conway wrote:" > > Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > 2 7.58 (7.74 7.65 7.63 7.60 7.60 7.58 7.58 7.58 7.55 7.54 7.53) > > > > 2 7.73 (8.38 8.14 8.13 8.00 7.94 7.73 7.62 7.60 7.46 7.33 7.04) > > > Anybody else notice that Larry's results are monotonic on both sets of > data ? The chances against monotonicity for each run are 2^9 to 1 > against. > > This says VERY loudly that these are not random differences - something
Quite correct. This is about as strongly correlated against run number as you can get. Correcting for the deduced dependence on the run number leaves a very small variance indeed in the rest. About 0.1 sd. But I suspect Larry corrected for that also?
> And yeah, the median certainly covered *that* thing up, no? > > Comments?
It has always been necessary to gather the full run statistics. I don't know why both parties keep going on about mins and medians ! (they're interesting executive summary numbers sure, but we learn a whole lot more from the distribution itself).
Peter
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |