Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:47:13 -0400 (EDT) | From | Mark Hahn <> | Subject | Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4 |
| |
> > my test for VM is to compile a kernel on my crappy old BP6 with mem=64m; > > I use a dedicated partition with a fresh ext2, unpack the same source tree, > > make -j2 7 times, drop 1 outlier, and average: > > > > 2.2.19: 584.462user 57.492system 385.112elapsed 166.5%CPU > > 2.4.12: 582.318user 40.535system 337.093elapsed 184.5%CPU > > > > Is this: > > 2.2.19: > 584.462user > 57.492system > 385.112elapsed > 166.5%CPU > > > 2.4.12: > 582.318user > 40.535system > 337.093elapsed > 184.5%CPU > > ???
what's the question? you just reformatted my results.
> If so, then 2.4.12 won on user, system and elapsed.
of course: that's the point. but elapsed is where the big difference is, and that's what's interesting, since it reflects less dead time due to smarter/less swapping.
> What's with the CPU > percentage? Are you on a dual system?
yes, of course: the bp6 is a dual, with cel/366's in this case. I don't think SMPness is relevant here.
> > notice that elapsed is noticably faster even than the 1+17 second > > benefit to user and system times. Rik's VM seems to be slightly > > No, that's Andrea's VM (since 2.4.10pre11). Rik's is in 2.4.xx-ac.
no, my statement is correct; I merely didn't give stats for Rik's VM.
- 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/
|  |