Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP

From: Hank Leininger (linux-kernel@progressive-comp.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 01:24:24 EST

Next message: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Linux's implementation of poll() not scalable?"
Previous message: Dan Kegel: "Re: Linux's implementation of poll() not scalable?"
Next in thread: Larry McVoy: "Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP"
Reply: Larry McVoy: "Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP"
Maybe reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2000-10-23, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com> wrote:

> Hardware:
> Dual P-II 400 Mhz
> 128 MB RAM
> 13GB hard drive

> First test was with 2.4.0-test10-pre3.
> Next four tests were with 2.4.0-test10-pre4.
> Final four tests were with 2.2.18-pre17.

Would it be meaningful to run two concurrent LMbench runs on SMP 2.2.18-p17
vs two concurrent runs on 2.4.0-t10-p4 ?

--
Hank Leininger <hlein@progressive-comp.com> 
  
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Linux's implementation of poll() not scalable?"
Previous message: Dan Kegel: "Re: Linux's implementation of poll() not scalable?"
Next in thread: Larry McVoy: "Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP"
Reply: Larry McVoy: "Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP"
Maybe reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: LMbench 2.4.0-test10pre-SMP vs. 2.2.18pre-SMP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:13 EST