however there is a third test as well that allows unrestricted updates.
to summerize there can be three tests.
1. "mindcraft config" the config they receieved from their requests for
help after the first test.
2. "tuned config" config tuned by experts, but only using patches from
what they would consider an "official" site (I can't blame them for this,
for newcomers to linux it is sometimes very hard to find info, this is
almost a reasonable limit)
3. "optional config" unlimited tuning by experts (although limited to
patches available anywhere as of the start of the test, no writing new
code during the test)
I think it will be very interesting to see the difference between the
three configs.
David Lang
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Matthew Hunter wrote:
> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 08:08:55 -0400
> From: Matthew Hunter <mhunter@andrew.cmu.edu>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: Mindcraft III
>
> On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 04:34:08AM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Mindcraft are not releasing the results of their
> > recent retest. They'll be running it a third time:
> > http://www.mindcraft.com/openbenchmark.html
>
> This is an interesting change of position. Perhaps they are really
> trying to be honest, since this report has been widely publicized and
> their reputation is at risk. However, reading their proposal, I notice
> a potential problem: they are limiting the patches that can be applied
> to the Linux system to those available from a limited list of sites
> within a limited timeframe.
>
> In short, if you want constant foo to have a known, non-default value,
> the typical way to do it would be to modify the code to change the
> constant, then recompile. It's a trivial change for anyone familiar
> with the system, but under the new rules, it doesn't seem like it would
> be allowed. Instead, you would have to find a publically-available
> patch and apply that.
>
> In effect, the result would not be "tuning", but instead something
> vaguely reminiscent of MS's service packs; "vaguely official updates
> only".
>
> The restriction is presumably intended to simulate a knowledgeable
> expert who doesn't want to make any "dangerous" changes, but then,
> changing certain constant values is not necessarily dangerous for a
> kernel expert; NT probably allows similar constants to be changed via
> the registry, thus giving NT an advantage (albeit possibly a minor one).
>
> If anyone is going to take them up on this one, the issue is probably
> worth clarifying.
>
> --
> Matthew Hunter (mhunter@andrew.cmu.edu)
> Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are root, and
> merciless.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
"If users are made to understand that the system administrator's job is to
make computers run, and not to make them happy, they can, in fact, be made
happy most of the time. If users are allowed to believe that the system
administrator's job is to make them happy, they can, in fact, never be made
happy."
- -Paul Evans (as quoted by Barb Dijker in "Managing Support Staff", LISA '97)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNzBxrD7msCGEppcbAQFQYAf/bobJtp+QUCOJC4E5uhICcTIz9M3O5ATy
ylQedZw4Pq3p2wDl0VCA0XLyzlvxV1RPcqwxxm84gmKkM5b5bZTir3h30ARXC5pb
PhdsRBSRKM/Y8hV4CibN7HIF+3o+aIgSKfyPVPhbDbvRbiPecmfYb10o02hnlswk
L54DXnBJ4mjRHQEznea22M6hDDP/b94UXVCh+ErNw4QOC8He3Pvn7INxJBW/lSAv
WFT1NAuBtg1xT0UflkZzYtjuZ0bDsIaQp9PfA5n+n8aQk9caJ9M1kA1FjXdKo5ts
qnTh1V7HpaZywc9iH/kXcUegiPynJXAuAJ/mvUo/4YRXBut5kKjSDA==
=59Dx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/