From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261177AbTDDTmq (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:42:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261223AbTDDTmq (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:42:46 -0500 Received: from static-ctb-210-9-247-181.webone.com.au ([210.9.247.181]:27140 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261177AbTDDTmp (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:42:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E8DE2D2.1070006@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 05:53:54 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Joel Becker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: WimMark I report for 2.5.66-mm3 References: In-Reply-To: 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 Hugh Dickins wrote: >On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Joel Becker wrote: > > >>WimMark I report for 2.5.66-mm3 >> >>Runs (deadline): 1736.51 1681.50 1010.98 >>Runs (antic): 579.62 496.75 517.06 >> >> WimMark I is a rough benchmark we have been running >>here at Oracle against various kernels. Each run tests an OLTP >>workload on the Oracle database with somewhat restrictive memory >>conditions. etc. etc. etc. >> > >No doubt the people who need to know do already know, but each time >you post this I wish that the long exegesis accompanying the numbers >would say whether a big number is better or worse than a small number. > A bigger number is better. AS does have something missing in recent mms due to a bad interaction with SCSI, but it is still around 20% below deadline for this test. It is being worked on.