Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

[kernel@kolivas.org]

Quoting Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>:

> Con Kolivas wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>for audio and video this would seem to be a fairly simple scaleing
> factor
> >>>>(or just doing a fixed amount of work rather then a fixed percentage of
> >>>>the CPU worth of work), however for X it is probably much more
> >>>>complicated (is the X load really linearly random in how much work it
> >>>>does, or is it weighted towards small amounts with occasional large
> >>>>amounts hitting? I would guess that at least beyond a certin point the
> >>>>liklyhood of that much work being needed would be lower)
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>Actually I don't disagree. What I mean by hardware changes is more along
> >>>the lines of changing the hard disk type in the same setup. That's what I
> >>>mean by careful with the benchmarking. Taking the results from an athlon
> >>>XP and comparing it to an altix is silly for example.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I'm going to cautiously disagree. If the CPU needed was scaled so it
> >>represented a fixed number of cycles (operations, work units) then the
> >>effect of faster CPU would be shown. And the total power of all attached
> >>CPUs should be taken into account, using HT or SMP does have an effect
> >>of feel.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >That is rather hard to do because each architecture's interpretation of
> fixed 
> >number of cycles is different and this doesn't represent their speed in the
> 
> >real world. The calculation when interbench is first run to see how many 
> >"loops per ms" took quite a bit of effort to find just how many loops each 
> >different cpu would do per ms and then find a way to make that not change 
> >through compiler optimised code. The "loops per ms" parameter did not end up
> 
> >being proportional to cpu Mhz except on the same cpu type.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Disk tests should be at a fixed rate, not all you can do. That's NOT
> >>realistic.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Not true; what you suggest is another thing to check entirely, and that
> would 
> >be a valid benchmark too. What I'm interested in is what happens if you read
> 
> >or write a DVD ISO image for example to your hard disk and what this does to
> 
> >interactivity. This sort of reading or writing is not throttled in real
> life.
> >
> 
> Of course it is. At least the read. It's limited to the speed needed to 
> either play (watch) the image or to burn it.

Ok we'll call it hair splitting. We do both. You read the file and I copy it.
Both happen in real life, and I plan to emulate both.

Cheers,
Con