RE: AIM Bench Mark results for different kernels

From: Pavan Kumar Reddy N.S. (pavan.kumar@wipro.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 04:16:37 EST

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your feedback.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@digeo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:19 PM
> To: Pavan Kumar Reddy N.S.
> Cc: kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: AIM Bench Mark results for different kernels
>
>
> "Pavan Kumar Reddy N.S." wrote:
> >
> >
> > AIM Independent Resource Benchmark - Suite IX v1.1, January
> 22, 1996
> > Copyright (c) 1996 - 2001 Caldera International, Inc. All Rights
> > Reserved
> >
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> This would be enormously less painful to read if you could
> fix your mailer to not word-wrap your content.

I will take care of this...

>
> All the compute-intensive workloads are down ~1% because of
> the increase of HZ from 100 to 1000.
>
> Things like "sequential disk reads (K)/second" would be more
> interesting if they were accompanied by CPU utilisation. But
> then, CPU utilisation comparisons with 2.4 kernels are
> suspect because of the HZ change. Probably it would be more
> informative if the 2.5 kernel was altered to run at HZ=100,
> or run 2.4 at HZ-1000.

I will rerun for all the kernels after changing the HZ as you
Mentioned above. I will try to give the CPU utilization
Information along with the above results.

>
> 2.5.43 outperformed 2.5.42 and 2.5.44 by a *lot* in many
> tests. That is unexpected. It might be worth double-checking
> that result.
>
I will.


-
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/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:46 EST