[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Con Kolivas wrote:

    > Agreed. There probably is no statistically significant difference in the
    > different gcc versions.
    > Contest is very new and I appreciate any feedback I can get to make it
    > as worthwhile a benchmark as possible to those who know.

    your measurements are really useful i think, and people like Andrew
    started to watch those numbers - this is why at this point a bit more
    effort can/should be taken to filter out fluctuations better. Ie. a single
    fluctuation could send Andrew out on a wild goose chase while perhaps in
    reality his kernel was the fastest. Running every test twice should at
    least give a ballpart figure wrt. fluctuations, without increasing the
    runtime unrealistically.

    i agree that only the IO benchmarks are problematic from this POV - things
    like the process load and your other CPU-saturating numbers look perfectly

    obviously another concern to to make testing not take days to accomplish.
    This i think is one of the hardest things - making timely measurements
    which are still meaningful and provide stable results.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.019 / U:12.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site