On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:59:39PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> a tapoté : > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 01:58:29PM +0100, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > >> Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> >We're all very interested in *real* evidence here, because there > >> >hasn't been any in the past. If you don't have any evidence, you can > >> >expect people to call bullshit on this. > >> > >> I can't send any *evidence* here, but I can post my own opinions and > >> experiences with kernels. And I'd say thats not a bullshit. Yes, that's > >> true that performance gain isn't very big and noticeable, but after > >> recompiling 2.4.18-bf24 from woody with my own optimisations for athlon, > >> I noticed little speed up in compiling my programs. > > > > This is probably what is known as "the placebo effect". > > > > Human impressions of this form are always entirely disconnected with > > reality; the mind applies filters based on expectations, that throw > > them hopelessly adrift. If you build your kernel with options you > > expect to work faster, it will seem faster; if you take a pill, you > > feel better. > > Why do you always assume being facing idiots? Partial straw man compounded with slander. Learn some manners. > People knows all about placebo effect, but do you have any evidence > that there is nothing more than placebo effect? I have considerable evidence that there *is* one here, and it's Mateusz's statement, which I quoted "I noticed little speed up in compiling my programs" That's not "I timed it and it was faster", and it's not "I carefully benchmarked it" - it's an impression. Whether or not there was an actual performance increase is irrelevant, because there will have been a placebo effect, and it renders the data point useless when alone, statistically. [You *could* build a valid experiment using "seems faster", but not from one person and not in an uncontrolled environment] > If you compile a kernel without lot of modules for hardware and stuff > you do not have, there is nothing weird to suppose it may have some > consequences at later point, by having a kernel size reduced by 25%. See, that's the sort of nonsense that I object to. It is highly likely that kernel size does not affect system performance in a measurable fashion, other than on low-memory systems. Why would it? [The rest of your mail managed to miss the point entirely, so I'll skip replying to it] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature