On 29-May 10:58, James Kahn wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 22:16, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 09:48:33AM +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> > > Hmmm, everyone can do so on their own machines easily .... how are the
> > > results on yours ? :)
> > >
> > > I'll give it a more systematic try with a linux-kernel sourcetree instead of
> > > my cvsroot, but that's later today.
> >
> > That is not a deterministic test. It doesn't provide a particularly
> > useful benchmark; it involves a semi-random pattern of disk access
> > which is hopelessly skewed by environmental factors.
>
> Far from being a "deterministic" test, it's not a test of CPU at all.
> The CPU will be mostly idle waiting for data from the hard disk and bus.
=) I want your box. Even on my Athlon box with lots of ram, a kernel compile
is definately cpu bound. I'll give you that disk access adds too much
"noise" for benchmarking. A "find . -exec cat {} >/dev/null \;" in the build
tree speeds things greatly, but then I have 512M ram. Building a test
framework around a kernel untar then build isn't that hard. (Even I can do
it...that's saying something.)
That said, this tread seems to be heading now where fast. Wouldn't it just
be nice of woody+1 could be rebuilt using tools? Software shouldn't need
hand holding.
Thomas
[snip]
Attachment:
pgpbnbzLHbDxH.pgp
Description: PGP signature