Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: qsbench, interesting results | Date | Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:20:39 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday 01 October 2002 19:13, Rik van Riel wrote: > With one process that needs 150% of RAM as its working set, > there simply is no way to win.
True, the object is merely to suck as little as possible. Note that 2.4.xx trounces 2.5.xx rather soundly on the test in question.
> > It should run the process as efficiently as possible, given that there > > isn't any competition. > > If there is no competition I agree. However, if the system has > something else running at the same time as qsbench I think the > system should make an effort to have _only_ qsbench thrashing > and not every other process in the system as well.
Did I miss something? I thought the test was just a single instance of qsbench.
> > Try loading a high res photo in gimp and running any kind of interesting > > script-fu on it. If it doesn't thrash, boot with half the memory and > > repeat. > > But, should just the gimp thrash, or should every process on the > machine thrash ?
Gimp should thrash exactly as much as it needs to, to get its job done. No competition, remember? I realize you're getting ready to do a sales job for process load control, but you needn't bother, I'm already sold. We're not talking about that.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |