Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:41:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WimMark I report for 2.5.69
Message-Id: <20030507154150.005db55e.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030507175422.GX3989@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>
References: <20030507175422.GX3989@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1038
Lines: 29

Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> WimMark I report for 2.5.69
> 
> Runs:  1462.17 1005.78 1995.99
> ...
> This benchmark is sensitive to random system events.

You can say that again.

> I run three runs because of this.  If two runs are nearly identical and the
> remaining run is way off, that run should probably be ignored (it is
> often a low number, signifying that something on the system impacted
> the benchmark).

Here we have 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0.

We need to understand why there is such variation.  If we can do that,
then perhaps we can make those 1.0's and 1.5's go away.

Is that a thing you can work on?  One approach would be to vary parameters
(filesystem type, amount of memory, TCQ lengths, workload, whatever) and
see which ones the throughput is sensitive to.

-
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/