![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: >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? > Yes, the stock kernel is much improved from say 6 months ago. I will take a look at the kernel that shipped with my distro just for giggles as well... >> >>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. > Yes this smells like a statistical anomaly - Will run mulitple tests tonight and see if there's an actual trend there or just a blip on the screen. Joe > - 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 12:18 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||