Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750781AbVJFKFU (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 06:05:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750784AbVJFKFU (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 06:05:20 -0400 Received: from smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.96]:1433 "HELO smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750781AbVJFKFS (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 06:05:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QSwVEDTM64ybhjeZxkhnqI9xYtUQvpwufvTT9WUUYOMK3kAtBoDkkQ4fmFHukeaH7h6XYFXikiFVGTx+JhRkUb8iwhOg5JiMtjXYNCLT8qouiCT/YkkYdF7X61WShpP1fm42b5ucCPhOZyqOJKgcZfU4u7wRPUPYnMa8irMJVH0= ; Message-ID: <4344F6A4.2070707@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:04:20 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050802 Debian/1.7.10-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: "Chen, Kenneth W" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kernel performance update - 2.6.14-rc3 References: <200510052115.j95LFgg07836@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <1128579372.2960.6.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <1128579372.2960.6.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1228 Lines: 29 Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>dbench is catching some attention. We just ran it with default >>parameter. I don't think default parameter is the right one to use >>on some of our configurations. For example, it shows +100% improvement > > > never ever consider dbench a serious benchmark; the thing is you can > make dbench a lot better very easy; just make the kernel run one thread > at a time until completion. dbench really gives very variable results, > but it is not really possible to say if +100% or -100% is an improvement > or a degredation for real life. So please just don't run it, or at least > don't interpret the results in a "higher is better" way. > As a disk IO performance benchmark you are absolutely right. Some people like using it to test VM scalability and throughput if it is being used on tmpfs. In that case the results are generally more stable. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/