![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
J Sloan wrote: > > I had earlier posted reports about the low latency patch in terms > that are too subjective - e.g. saying that "quake 3 arena feels much > smoother and I frag a lot more" isn't the kind of hard statistical > evidence demanded by some. I have attempted to quanitify the latency > differences in one of the workloads where I see and feel a difference. mm. Numbers. Nice. > > 2.4.18-pre6+tux+nfs-fixes > ------------- > ... > 7.6 1 > 7.8 1 > 21.1 1 This is the stock kernel. In twenty minutes you suffered precisely *one* scheduling overrun which is perceptible by a human. The rest are much shorter than your monitor's refresh interval. Interesting, yes? These results are better than the ones I normally measure. > ... > The dbench results: > > 2.4.18-pre6+tux+nfs-fixes > --------------------------------- > ... > Throughput 48.9432 MB/sec (NB=61.179 MB/sec 489.432 MBit/sec) 16 procs > ... > > 2.4.18-pre6+tux+nfs-fixes + low latency patch > --------------------------------- > ... > Throughput 106.361 MB/sec (NB=132.951 MB/sec 1063.61 MBit/sec) 16 procs > ... Now that's odd. - - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||