On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Kent A. Reed wrote:
>>
>> As an aside, it was interesting to me that while the author of the
>> bitmuster article made note of the fact that different tools reported
>> different numbers, he/she seemed indifferent to the actual numbers reported.
>
Kent A. Reed wrote:
>
> As an aside, it was interesting to me that while the author of the
> bitmuster article made note of the fact that different tools reported
> different numbers, he/she seemed indifferent to the actual numbers reported.
>
>
Uhhh, why bother making a measurement if you hav
On 4/1/2012 2:03 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Kent A. Reed wrote:
>> With a preempt_RT enabled kernel 2.6.33.7.2-rt30 and an appropriately
>> modified EMC2.4.4 [patches from Michael Büsch and Jeff Eppler] running
>> on an IBM Thinkpad T40 with a 1500MHz PentiumM cpu, the author measured
>> the following:
Kent A. Reed wrote:
>
> With a preempt_RT enabled kernel 2.6.33.7.2-rt30 and an appropriately
> modified EMC2.4.4 [patches from Michael Büsch and Jeff Eppler] running
> on an IBM Thinkpad T40 with a 1500MHz PentiumM cpu, the author measured
> the following:
> -
> 1) the EMC2 latency-test
>
>
On 3/31/2012 4:45 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> I found this:
> http://www.bitmuster.org/projects/emc.html
>
> the thing that comes to mind, considering the rev date, how it seems
> fairly significant, and recent questions on the list, it's a little
> surprising that this hasn't hit the wiki or been on
